Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

Cancer clinical trial providers' perspectives on communicating goals of care: A key informant study

Objectives

There has been limited research to date exploring provider communication in the context of cancer clinical trials. To elucidate multidisciplinary care providers' experiences, this qualitative study sought to understand their perspectives and communication patterns around goals of care discussions with patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials.

Methods

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, nurses, and administrative staff in a cancer research hospital (N=19). Data were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis.

Results

Providers hold varied perspectives on goals of care in cancer clinical trials, highlighting the tension and potential for misalignment between scientific and clinical (patient-centered) goals. Inherent institutional hierarchies may impede some team members from initiating goal discussions. Care transitions (e.g., stopping treatment or initiating hospice) offer critical opportunities for goals of care discussions.

Conclusion

Conflicting perspectives among team members, perceptions of provider roles, and communication patterns could help explain some of the communication challenges previously documented in advanced cancer and clinical trial care.

Innovation

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on healthcare team communication in the clinical trial context and highlights tangible opportunities to better leverage providers' diverse experience and improve patient-centered care.

Consent Builder: an innovative tool for creating research informed consent documents

Objective

To describe process innovations related to research informed consent documents, and development and formative evaluation of Consent Builder, a platform for generating consent documents for multicenter studies.

Materials and Methods

Analysis of Institutional Review Board workflows and documents, followed by process redesign, document redesign, and software development. Locally developed software leverages REDCap and LaTeX. A small-scale usability study was conducted.

Results

Process innovations were combining document types, and conceptualizing 2-part informed consent documents: part 1 standardizing the study description and part 2 with local site verbiage. Consent Builder was implemented in the Trial Innovation Network. User survey scores were acceptable; but areas for improvement were noted. LaTeX coding was the biggest challenge for users.

Discussion

The process changes were generally well accepted. The software implementation uncovered un-accounted for assumptions, and variability in IRB review workflow across centers. Technical modifications may be needed before widespread implementation.

Conclusion

We demonstrated proof-of-concept of an approach to generate research consent documents that are consistent across sites in study description, but which allow for customization of local site verbiage. The Consent Builder tool is an example of an operational innovation, helping meet a need that arose in part due to regulations around use of Single IRB for multicenter trials.

Understanding Verbosity: Funding Source and the Length of Consent Forms for Cancer Clinical Trials

Consent forms are an important educational tool that helps cancer patients decide on whether or not to enroll on a clinical trial, but wordiness potentially detracts from their educational value. This single-institution study examined word counts of consent forms for all phase I, II, and III solid tumor clinical trials between 2004 and 2010. Consent forms were categorized by trial funding source: (1) pharmaceutical company; (2) National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN); (3) R01- or other non-government grants; and (4) mixed (funding from multiple sources). Three hundred fifteen consent forms were studied; these included 106 (34%) pharmaceutical company; 145 (46%) NCTN; 44 (14%) R01 type; and 20 (6%) mixed. The overall median word count was 5129 words per consent form (interquartile range (IQR) range, 4226 to 6695). The median word counts per consent form (IQR) were 5648 (4814, 6803), 5243 (4139, 6932), 4365 (3806, 5124), and 4319 (3862, 5944), respectively, based on the above funding sources, showing that pharmaceutical company trial consent forms had the highest median word count. Of note, phase of trial was associated with consent form length (phase III were wordier), and consent forms manifested a consistent increase in wordiness over time. These observations underscore a timely need to find ways to limit the verbosity of consent forms, particularly in those from pharmaceutical company trials.

Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single-Agent Anticancer Therapies

PURPOSE

Phase I trials are a crucial step in the evaluation of new cancer therapies. Historically, low rates of response (5%) and comparably high rates of death from toxicities (0.5%) have contributed to debates on the ethics and orientation of these trials. With the introduction of novel targeted therapies, a contemporary estimate is needed.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports of phase I oncology trials of single-agent targeted immunomodulators, molecularly targeted therapies, and antiangiogenic agents, published between January 2015 and July 2018. Adult and pediatric trials of solid and hematological malignancies were eligible. Treatment-related adverse events (grades 3, 4, and 5) and response rates (objective, complete, and partial) were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight trial reports, covering 6,707 patients, were included. The rate of treatment-related deaths was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1), while 13.2% of patients (9.5 to 17.3) experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicity. The combined objective response rate was 6.4% (4.6 to 8.5). Among trials using tumor biomarkers as eligibility criteria, the objective response rate was higher (12.0% [7.3 to 17.6] compared to 4.9% [2.5 to 5.7], P value < .01). The same was true of trials focusing on a single tumor type (13.4% [8.2 to 19.4]) compared to multiple tumor types (3.8% [2.5 to 5.3], P value < .01).

CONCLUSION

Reduced grade 5 risk and improved benefit appears to exist in modern phase I oncology trials, particularly in trials that target single tumor types and integrate biomarkers as eligibility criteria. These findings provide information to support informed consent discussions, highlight the need for improved reporting of phase I oncology trials, and provide direction for optimizing their design.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT)

INTRODUCTION

Early phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04407676; Pre-results.

Anxiety Shapes Expectations of Therapeutic Benefit in Phase I Trials for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Spousal Caregivers

PURPOSE

Advanced cancer patients (ACP) hope to receive significant therapeutic benefit from phase I trials despite terminal disease and presumed symptom burdens. We examined associations between symptom burdens and expectations of therapeutic benefit for ACP and spousal caregivers (SC) during phase I trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of ACP-SC enrolled in phase I trials was assessed at baseline and one month using symptom burden measures evaluating depression, state-trait anxiety, quality of life, global health, post-traumatic coping, and marital adjustment. Interviews evaluated expectations of benefit.

RESULTS

Fifty-two phase I ACP and 52 SC (N = 104) were separately assessed and interviewed at baseline and one month. Total population demographics included the following: median age 61 years (28-78), 50% male, 100% married, 90% White, and 46% ≥ college education. At T1, ACP reported symptoms of mild state anxiety, mild trait anxiety, poor global health, and quality of life. SC reported moderate state and mild trait anxiety and good global health with little disability at baseline. State anxiety was a significant predictor of ACP expectations for phase I producing the following therapeutic benefits: stabilization (P = .01), shrinkage (P < .01), and remission (P = .04). Regression analyses also revealed negative associations between SC expectation for stabilization and SC anxiety: state (P = .01) and trait (P = .02). ACP quality of life was also negatively associated with SC expectations for stabilization (P = .02) and shrinkage (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Anxiety, both state and trait, impacts couples' beliefs regarding the likelihood of therapeutic benefit from phase I trial participation.

Identifying patient values impacting the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For many patients with advanced cancer, the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical trials or not is complex. The decision-making process requires an in-depth discussion of patient values. We therefore aimed to synthesize and describe patient values that may affect early phase clinical trial participation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in seven electronic databases on patient values in relation to patients' decisions to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials.

RESULTS

From 3072 retrieved articles, eleven quantitative and five qualitative studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We extracted ten patient values that can contribute to patients' decisions. Overall, patients who seek trial participation usually report hope, trust, quantity of life, altruism, perseverance, faith and/or risk tolerance as important values. Quality of life and humanity are main values of patients who refuse trial participation. Autonomy and social adherence can be reported by both trial seekers or refusers, dependent upon how they are manifested in a patient.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified patient values that frequently play a role in the decision-making process. In the setting of discussing early phase clinical trial participation with patients, healthcare professionals need to be aware of these values. This analysis supports the importance of individual exploration of values. Patients that become aware of their values, e.g. by means of interventions focused on clarifying their values, could feel more empowered to choose. Subsequently, healthcare professionals could improve their support in a patients' decision-making process and reduce the chance of decisional conflict.

The Effect of Disclosing Life Expectancy Information on Patients' Prognostic Understanding: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Trial of a Palliative Chemotherapy Educational Intervention

CONTEXT

Many advanced patients with cancer have unrealistic prognostic expectations.

OBJECTIVES

We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at two weeks and three months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at three months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment).

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted "a lot" or "as much information as possible" about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by two weeks and 66.7% by three months-of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of patients with colorectal cancer estimated greater than five years; 50% pancreatic patients estimated greater than two years. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.