Informed consent for phase I oncology trials: form, substance and signature

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

BACKGROUND

Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE).

METHODS

The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar.

CONCLUSIONS

By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Improving oncology first-in-human and Window of opportunity informed consent forms through participant feedback

BACKGROUND

Although patient advocates have developed templates for standard consent forms, evaluating patient preferences for first in human (FIH) and window of opportunity (Window) trial consent forms is critical due to their unique risks. FIH trials are the initial use of a novel compound in study participants. In contrast, Window trials give an investigational agent over a fixed duration to treatment naïve patients in the time between diagnosis and standard of care (SOC) surgery. Our goal was to determine the patient-preferred presentation of important information in consent forms for these trials.

METHODS

The study consisted of two phases: (1) analyses of oncology FIH and Window consents; (2) interviews of trial participants. FIH consent forms were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating that the study drug has not been tested in humans (FIH information); Window consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating the trial may delay SOC surgery (delay information). Participants were asked about their preferred placement of the information in their own trial's consent form. The location of information in the consent forms was compared to the participants' suggestions for placement.

RESULTS

34 [17 FIH; 17 Window] of 42(81%) cancer patients approached participated. 25 consents [20 FIH; 5 Window] were analyzed. 19/20 FIH consent forms included FIH information, and 4/5 Window consent forms included delay information. 19/20(95%) FIH consent forms contained FIH information in the risks section 12/17(71%) patients preferred the same. Fourteen (82%) patients wanted FIH information in the purpose, but only 5(25%) consents mentioned it there. 9/17(53%) Window patients preferred delay information to be located early in the consent, before the "Risks" section.  3/5(60%) consents did this.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing consents that reflect patient preferences more accurately is essential for ethical informed consent; however, a one-size fits all approach will not accurately capture patient preferences. We found that preferences differed for FIH and Window trial consents, though for both, patients preferred key risk information early in the consent. Next steps include determining if FIH and Window consent templates improve understanding.

Improved participants' understanding in a healthy volunteer study using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled study

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of the principles and informed consent form (ICF) template proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) in a clinical pharmacokinetic study by comparing the volunteers’ understanding of the enhanced ICF (developed based on the SIDCER methodology) and the conventional ICF (which was previously approved by local Ethics Committee and used in the clinical study).

Methods

A total of 550 volunteers were randomly assigned to read either the enhanced ICF or the conventional ICF (1:1) in a mock informed consent approach and subsequently performed the post-test questionnaire. The primary endpoint was the proportion of the participants who had the post-test score of ≥80 %; the secondary endpoints were the total score of the post-test, the score of the categorized ICF elements, and time spent for participation.

Results

The proportion of the participants in the enhanced ICF group who achieved the primary endpoint was significantly higher than the conventional ICF group (82.2 % vs. 60.4 %, p < 0.001). The participants in the enhanced ICF group obtained higher scores and spent less time in reading the given ICF and answering the post-test than those in the conventional ICF group (total score 19/21 vs. 18/21, p < 0.001; time spent 20 min vs. 25 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The enhanced ICF improved the understanding of the participants in this study. This demonstrates the applicability of the SIDCER ICF principles and its template in the development of an enhanced ICF for improving the quality of ICFs and subjects’ understanding in clinical research.

Trial registration: TCTR20140727001