Ethical concerns have been raised about the quality of informed consent by participants in phase 1 oncology trials. Interview surveys indicate that substantial proportions of trial participants do not understand the purpose of these trials—evaluating toxicity and dosing for subsequent efficacy studies—and overestimate the prospect of therapeutic benefit that they offer. In this article we argue that although these data suggest the desirability of enhancing the process of information disclosure and assessment of comprehension of the implications of study participation, they do not necessarily invalidate consent by phase 1 trial participants.
- Informed Consent
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Two concepts of therapeutic optimism
- Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research
- Informed consent for early-phase clinical trials: therapeutic misestimation, unrealistic optimism and appreciation
- Phase I oncology trials: why the therapeutic misconception will not go away
- Therapeutic appropriation: a new concept in the ethics of clinical research
- Perceptions of control and unrealistic optimism in early-phase cancer trials
- Phase I cancer trials: a qualitative study of specialist palliative care
- Living with Crohn’s disease: an exploratory cross-sectional qualitative study into decision-making and expectations in relation to autologous haematopoietic stem cell treatment (the DECIDES study)
- Faith, Hope And (No) Clarity
- Therapeutic optimism in the consent forms of phase 1 gene transfer trials: an empirical analysis