Skip to main content
Log in

Ethical Issues in the Development of New Agents

  • Published:
Investigational New Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the early drug development process for cancer therapy, several ethical dilemmas result from the use of cancer patients with advanced disease as the subjects of research in clinical trials studying agents of unknown toxicity and/or efficacy. Although several accepted ethical principles guide the behavior of involved physicians and investigators, many of these principles are allowed to be violated in order to achieve the overall goal of clinical research in improving medical care for future patients. Informed consent has been a process viewed by many as a mechanism which protects potentially vulnerable patients from harm in the clinical trial process. However, the ability of the traditionally regulated process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research may be inadequate to ensure appropriate understanding of the purposes and the goals of early clinical trial research by potentially vulnerable advanced cancer patients. This creates further dilemmas with regard to physician-investigator and patient-subject communications. In the setting of phase I trials, where the specific goal of the research is to obtain toxicity information regarding a new potential anticancer agent, many heightened ethical conflicts are present. The fact that patients do not participate in these studies as a result of altruism, and that their main goals of participation are intensely therapeutic, create issues that may be in direct conflict with the research purpose of phase I trials. As well, the presence of therapeutic intentions on the part of involved physician-investigators creates challenging issues when one realizes the very low likelihood of benefit for individual patients participating in these studies. Within the phase II setting, the statistical constraints placed on new drug trials and, again, the low likelihood of benefit for participating-subjects, also creates challenging dilemmas. These statistical requirements may be in direct conflict with involved clinicians' attitudes and beliefs regarding potential efficacy of an agent in this setting. As well, these issues become problematic when thinking about the desired structure and outcome for informed consent in phase II anticancer trials. The ability to conduct clinical research on advanced cancer patients using agents of unknown efficacy and toxicity is a daunting privilege granted to physicians and accompanying institutions. The weight of this privilege should not be underestimated, and involved physician-investigators should be aware of the significant ethical challenges involved in appropriately and successfully conducting this form of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engelhardt HT: The foundations of bioethics. 2nd edition; 330–335. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The final report of the president's advisory committee. 2nd edition; 330–335. Oxford The human radiation experiments. Oxford University Press; New York, 1996 (ACHRE).

  3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP: A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Applebaum PS, Lindz CN, Meisel A: Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford University Press; New York, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  5. Levine RJ: Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd edition. Vurland and Schwarzenburg; Baltimore, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report; ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Publication number (05) 78-0012. USGPO, Washington, DC, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  7. Freedman B, Fuks A, Weijer C: Demarcating Research in Treatment: a systematic approach for the analysis of the ethics of clinical research. Clin Res 40:655–660, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bok S: Shading the truth in informed consent for clinical research. J Kennedy Inst Ethics 5:1–17, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pelligrino ED: Beneficence, scientific autonomy, and selfinterest: Ethical dilemmas in clinical research. Cumb Q Health Ethics 1:361–369, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ: Clinical ethics. McGraw-Hill; New York, 1992 3rd edition, pp 146–149.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schaffner KF: Ethical problems in clinical trials. J Med Philos 11:297–315, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  12. Markman M: The objective clinical scientist versus the advocate: A complex ethical and political dilemma facing cancer investigators and the public. Cancer Invest 13:324–326, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elks ML: Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med 126:19–23, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hammerschmidt DE: When commitments and interests conflict. J Lab Clin Med 126:5–6, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  15. Levine RJ: Clinical trials and physicians as double agents. Yale J Biol Med 65:-74, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  16. Katz J: Experimentation with human beings. Russell Sage Foundation. New York, 1972

    Google Scholar 

  17. Annas GJ: The changing landscape of human experimentation; Nuremberg, Helsinki, and beyond. J Law-Med 2:119–140, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  18. Katz J: Human experimentation and human rights. St. Louis Univ Law Jour 38:7–54, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engelhardt HT: The foundations of bioethics. 2nd edition; 330–335. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jonas H: Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In Paul A. Freund, ed., Experimentation with human subjects. George Brazilier; New York, 1969

    Google Scholar 

  21. The President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Implementing human research regulations: The adequacy and uniformity of federal rules and their implementation. USGPO, publication number 040-000-00471-8, Washington, DC, 1983

  22. Epstein LC, Lasagna L: Obtaining informed consent, form or substance. Arch Intern Med 123:682–688, 1969

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gray BH, Cooke RA, Tannenbaum AS: Research involving human subjects. The performance of institutional review boards is assessed in this empirical study. Science 201:1094–1101, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hammerschmidt DE, Keanse MA: Institutional review board review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci 304:341–351, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  25. Edgar H, Rothman DJ: The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. J Milb Q 73;489–506, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  26. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD: Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 22:78–82, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Daugherty CK: The impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A Medical Oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol 17:, 1999 (in press)

  28. Kent G: Shared understandings for informed consent: the relevance of psychological research on the provision of information. Soc Sci Med 43:1517–1524, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verheggen FWSM, van Wijmen FCB: Informed consent in clinical trials. Health Policy 36:131–153, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  30. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Thornton J, Hewison J: Informed consent for clinical trials: In search of the "best" method. Soc Sci Med 47:1825–1840, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky R, Siegler M: Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1637–1643, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vanderpool HY. The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects. Facing the 21st Century. p 306: University Publishing Group, Frederick, Maryland, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  33. Von Hoff DD, Turner J: Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effect in phase I studies in antineoplastics. Invest New Drugs 9:415–422, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  34. Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE: Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. J Ann Oncol 2:175–781, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  35. Estey E, Hoth D, Wittes R, et al: Therapeutic responses in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 70:1105–1115, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith TL, Lee JJ, Kantarjian HM, et al: Design and results of phase I cancer clinical trials: 3 year experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 14:287–295, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rodenhuis S, van den Heuvel WJ, Annyas AA, Koops HS, Sleijfer DT, Mulder NH: Patient motivation and informed consent in a phase I study of an anticancer agent. fur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1984; 20:457–462

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tomamichel M, Sessa C, Herzig S, de-Jong J, Pagani O, Willems Y, Cavalli F: Informed consent for phase I studies: Evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol 6:321–323, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  39. Willem Y, Sessa C: Informing patients about phase I trials-How should it be done? Aeta Oncol 1989; 28:106–107

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yoder LH, O'Rourke TJ, Ethyre A, Spears DT: Expectations and experiences of patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum 24:89196, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  41. Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Fuji H, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, Igarashi T, Abe K: Patients in phase I trials of anti-cancer agents in Japan: Motivation, comprehension and expectations. Br J Cancer 76:107–113, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  42. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, Siegler M: Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1062–1072

    Google Scholar 

  43. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler WM, Siegler M: Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 16:2305–2312, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  44. Seale C: Communication and awareness about death: A study of a random sample of dying people. Soc Sci Med 32:943–952, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hinton J: How reliable are relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness? Patients' and Relatives' counts compared. Soc Sci Med 43:1229–1236, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, Miller DJ, Stallings RY, Vettese MA, Haller KB: The accuracy of substituted judgements in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Int Med 128:621–629, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  47. Weeks JC, Cook EF, O'Day SJ, Peterson LM, Wenger N, Reding D, Harrell FE, Kussin P, Dawson NV, Conners AF, Lynn J, Phillips RS: Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA 279:1709–1714, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  48. Trill MD, Holland J: Cross-cultural differences in the care of patients with cancer. A review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 15:21–30, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marsoni S, Hoth D, Simon R, Leyland-Jones B, DeRosa M, Wittes RE. Clinical drug development: an analysis of phase II trials. Cancer Treat Rep 71:71–80, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  50. Storer B, DeMets D. Current phase I/II designs: are they adequate? J Clin Res Drug Dev 1:121, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rajagopal S, Goodman PJ, Tannock IF. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: discordance between physicians' perception of benefit and the results of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 12:1296, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  52. Belanger D, Moore M, Tannock I. How American oncologists treat breast cancer: an assessment of the influence of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:7, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  53. Baar J, Tannock I. Analyzing the same data in two ways: a demonstration model to illustrate the reporting and misreporting of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 7:969–978, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  54. Freedman B. Cohort-specific consent: An honest approach to phase I cancer studies. IRE Rev Human Subjects Res 12:5–7, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  55. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler WM, Siegler M. Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 16:2305–2312, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  56. Piantadosi S, Liu G. Improved designs for dose escalation studies using pharmacokinetic measurements. Stat Med 15:1605–1618, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ensign LG, Gehan EA, Kamen DS, Thall PF. An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med 13:1727–1736, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  58. Strauss N, Simon R. Investigating a sequence of randomized phase II trials to discover promising treatments. Stat Med 15:1479–1489, 1995

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daugherty, C.K. Ethical Issues in the Development of New Agents. Invest New Drugs 17, 145–153 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006371200296

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006371200296

Navigation