Views of IRB members regarding phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

There is significant debate over whether phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are ethical and approvable. We thus surveyed IRB members to answer four questions. First, do IRB members think the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks? Second, do they think these trials are ethically appropriate? Third, do they think these trials are approvable? Fourth, how do the views of IRB members on the first two questions compare to the views of the US public? Of the 80 respondents who answered the test questions correctly, 18.8% stated that the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials outweigh the risks, 32.5% stated that the potential medical benefits and risks are about equal, and 48.8% stated that the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits. Compared to the general public, IRB members were significantly more likely to think the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits (p = 0.01). Finally, 68.8% of IRB members indicated that average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable, and 56.3% indicated that these trials are appropriate in children. These findings suggest two-thirds of IRB members believe average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable. Yet, almost half regard the risks as outweighing the potential medical benefits and almost half think these trials are inappropriate. These findings raise important questions regarding why IRB members and the general public evaluate the same risk/benefit profile differently, and whether it is possible to reconcile the two perspectives.

Acceptable Risks in Pediatric Research: Views of the US Public.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Critics argue that it is unethical to expose children to research risks for the benefit of others, whereas many regulations permit "net-risk" pediatric research but only when the risks are minimal. In the present survey, we assessed whether the US public agrees with these views and whether the US public's views regarding the acceptability of net-risk pediatric research are influenced by its social value. METHODS: A 15-minute survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 hypothetical scenarios involving procedures that pose increasing levels of risk. To assess whether respondents' views on the acceptability of the risks is influenced by the social value of the research, in each of the 4 scenarios we described the respective procedure being used in 3 studies with increasing levels of social value. RESULTS: A total 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey link participated (response rate = 66.1%). Approximately 91% approved of a research blood draw in minors, and ∼69% approved of a research bone marrow biopsy. The proportion who indicated that the respective procedure was acceptable increased as the study's social value increased. This effect was significantly stronger for studies which pose greater risks compared with studies with lower risks (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of the US public supports net-risk pediatric research that poses minimal risk, and a majority supports net-risk pediatric research that poses somewhat greater risks, provided it has high social value. These findings offer important information for assessing when it is acceptable to conduct net-risk pediatric research.

Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the US public's views on whether the potential medical benefits of phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks. STUDY DESIGN: Online survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which they have a 10-year-old child with advanced cancer. They were then offered the option of giving their child supportive care or trying one more potential treatment, in the research or clinical care setting, which has the same risks and potential medical benefits as the average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. We assessed what percentage of respondents thought the potential medical benefits justify the risks. RESULTS: In total, 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey participated (response rate = 66.1%). Of those who passed all 3 test questions indicating understanding, 67.1% in the research scenario and 58.5% in the clinical care scenario regarded the potential medical benefits of an average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial as equal to or greater than the risks. In addition, 53.4% of respondents in the research scenario thought it was appropriate for researchers to conduct a study in children with these risks and potential medical benefits, and 46.9% stated they would enroll their own child in such a trial. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the US public regards the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials as justifying the risks. This finding suggests that these trials are ethically appropriate and approvable in patients who have no more effective treatment options. At the same time, a significant minority thought the potential medical benefits do not justify the risks, suggesting these trials should be approved only when they have significant social value. Moreover, approximately one-half of respondents regarded the trials as inappropriate and would not enroll their own child, underscoring the need for a rigorous informed consent process that accurately educates parents regarding the risks, potential medical benefits, and alternatives, so they can decide whether to enroll their child based on their own preferences and goals.