Research opportunities and ethical considerations for heart and lung xenotransplantation research: A report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.

Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance of immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including nonhuman primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include the appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potentially novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report.

Research involving the recently deceased: ethics questions that must be answered.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

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.

Reassessing the measurement and presence of therapeutic misconception in a phase 1 setting.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning the patient about the research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent as reported due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. The authors have created an interview tool receptive to these advancements to more accurately determine the prevalence of TM. METHODS: Patients were questioned about the trial's purpose as follows: 1) "Is the trial mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge?," 2) "Is it mostly intending to help you as a person?," or 3) "Don't know." Participants were then asked what they thought this question was asking: A) "What my own intentions are for participating," B) "What the official purpose of the research study is," or C) "Not sure." A patient exhibited TM by answering that the official trial purpose was to help him or her. RESULTS: Patients (n = 98) had a mean age of 60 years, were mostly White (64%), had a combined family annual income ≥$60,000 (61%), and 49% had a college degree. Twelve of 98 patients (12%) definitely exhibited TM. This was much lower than the author's original finding of 68% in a similar cohort. Twenty-four of 98 patients (24.5%) were unclear about what one or both questions were asking and could not be categorized. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, a patient was thought to have TM if they answered that the purpose of the trial was to benefit to him or her. An additional query about how patients interpreted that question revealed only 12% definitely had TM. LAY SUMMARY: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM signals a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of clinical research, threatening valid informed consent to participate in clinical trials. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning patients about their research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. By developing an interview-tool receptive to these advancements, we report a lower TM estimate in the phase 1 setting (12%) than we found previously in a similar cohort (68%).

Videos improve patient understanding of chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting.

BACKGROUND: It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4-9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. RESULTS: All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%-92%) suggested no changes to the videos. CONCLUSION: Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology-treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. LAY SUMMARY: Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high-need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.

Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.

BACKGROUND: The use of molecular testing in oncology is rapidly expanding. The aim of this study was to determine how oncologists describe molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology being used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty conversations between oncologists and patients about molecular testing were observed, and the used technical terms were noted by the researcher. Patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of the noted technical terms. A patient understanding score was calculated for each participant. Comparisons of the terms were conducted using χ2 tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA when appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-one unique technical terms were used by oncologists, to describe seven topics. "Mutation" was a challenging term for patients to understand with 48.8% (21/43 mentions) of participants correctly defining the term. "Genetic testing" and "Gene" were understood a little more than half the time (53.3%; 8/15 and 56.4%; 22/39 respectively). "DNA" was well understood (80%; 12/15). There was no correlation between the terms being defined by the oncologist in the conversation, and the likelihood of the patient providing a correct definition. White participants were significantly more likely to understand both "mutation" and "genetic testing" than non-White participants. Forty-two percent (n = 25) of participants had an understanding score below 50%, and a higher family income was significantly correlated with a higher score. CONCLUSION: Our results show that oncologists use variable terminology to describe molecular testing, which is often not understood. Because oncologists defining the terms did not correlate with understanding, it is imperative to develop new, improved methods to explain molecular testing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of molecular testing is expanding in oncology, yet little is known about how effectively clinicians are communicating information about molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology used. The results of this study indicate that patients do not understand some of the terminology used by their clinicians and that clinicians tend to use highly variable terminology to describe molecular testing. These results highlight the need to develop and implement effective methods to explain molecular testing terminology to patients to ensure that patients have the tools to make autonomous and informed decisions about their treatment.

Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.

Allocating Scarce Health Care Resources During Pandemics: Making the Case for Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Cancer.

The oncology community is concerned that patients with cancer will be unfairly classified in pandemic allocation guidance. Past guidance either excluded patients with metastatic cancer from consideration or categorized them as having a survival of less than 1 year. Given recent improvements in treatments, we recommend that the prognosis of an individual patient with cancer be determined with input from a cancer specialist or, if this is impractical, that the presence of active metastatic solid cancer or relapsed hematologic malignancy is graded as a major comorbidity, with a likelihood that survival will be less than 5 years; severe limitation in physical functioning (3 or 4 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) would define a patient with advanced cancer as having a severe comorbidity, with a likelihood of less than 1 year of survival. Cancer may be the "Emperor of all Maladies," but it is no longer a certain death sentence.

Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: It is important for researchers interested in trials using the exception from informed consent to understand the views and experiences of enrolled individuals. Previous studies have shown that patient and surrogate attitudes are generally positive. These studies were small and did not include pediatric patients, and interviews were often conducted long after trial enrollment. This study sought to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent in a larger sample and more contemporaneous setting. METHODS: A 10-item paper-and-pencil survey was integrated into the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a randomized trial of 3 treatments for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in pediatric and adult patients. Primary domains included attitudes toward trial enrollment, exception from informed consent, and community consultation. Simple descriptive statistics, χ2, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Of 317 patients and surrogates, 90% agreed with or were neutral about the statement "I am glad that I/my family member was included in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial research study," whereas 10% disagreed. Twenty-seven percent disagreed with enrollment in the study without prospective consent. Black participants were more likely than white, other race, and unknown-race participants to disagree with enrollment without prospective consent (36% versus 23%, 14%, and 14%, respectively). Participants indicated that patients (81%), their families (65%), and those at risk for seizures (51%) were most important to include in community consultation. CONCLUSION: This study aimed to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent enrollment among participants at all sites in a large, multicenter exception from informed consent trial. General acceptance of trial enrollment was high; acceptance of exception from informed consent specifically was somewhat lower, especially among black participants. Our findings provide further support for targeted community consultation focusing on individuals with connections to the disease under study. Future research should focus on communication in the postenrollment period, especially with individuals who may have concerns about exception from informed consent.

The Impact of Genetic Counseling Educational Tools on Patients' Knowledge of Molecular Testing Terminology.

Molecular testing is increasingly being integrated into cancer management. Despite rapid advancements, little work has been done to explore strategies for communicating with patients undergoing molecular tumor testing. This study evaluated the impact of genetic counseling educational tools on improving patients' understanding of key terms related to molecular testing. A genetic counseling intern designed a picture book to explain six words found in prior research to be difficult to understand (mutation, germline mutation, somatic mutation, biomarker, molecular testing, and targeted therapy). Participants who had previously discussed molecular testing with their oncologist were asked to define the terms. The same participants then received an explanation of each term either from the intern using the picture book in person or from a video presentation of the picture book. They were then asked to redefine each term afterward. The difference between the number of terms defined correctly pre- and post-intervention was compared between presentations. Sixty-three patients with melanoma, colon, lung, or breast cancer were recruited. After both interventions, correct understanding rates improved for all six terms, with significant improvement for germline mutation (p < 0.001), somatic mutation (p < 0.001), biomarker (p < 0.001), and molecular testing (p < 0.001). Understanding of targeted therapy improved significantly (p = 0.011) for the video presentation only. Mean change in knowledge scores did not differ between the two interventions (intern presentation 3.2 vs. video 2.9, p = 0.428). Our data suggest that genetic counseling educational tools can increase patient understanding of terms used to describe molecular testing.

Videos improve patient understanding of misunderstood chemotherapy terminology.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the backbone of many cancer therapies; however, the terminology used to describe chemotherapy may be difficult for patients to understand, particularly in underserved populations. Studies have shown that educational videos can improve patient understanding of cancer-related terms. The goal of this study was to identify chemotherapy terms that were difficult for an underserved population to understand and then develop and test educational videos describing these terms. METHODS: A word bank of 50 difficult-to-understand chemotherapy terms was developed by querying 15 providers and 50 patients at an underserved hospital. Twenty of these terms were then tested with 50 additional patients to determine rates of misunderstanding. Six pilot educational videos describing 6 important terms were created using VideoScribe and then assessed with 50 patients to see if they improved understanding. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 20 terms tested to establish rates of misunderstanding were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define maintenance, 74% unable to define cancer, and 58% unable to define chemotherapy. Patient understanding of all 6 terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. Notable improvement was reported for palliative chemotherapy, where before-and-after video understanding increased from 0% to 72%. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy, a backbone of cancer treatment, is described with terms that are difficult to understand. Short, animated educational videos can significantly increase patient understanding of chemotherapy terminology.

Ethical considerations of using a single minor donor for three bone marrow harvests for three HLA-matched siblings with primary immunodeficiency.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is curative for primary immunodeficiencies. Bone marrow from an unaffected human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling donor is the ideal graft source. For minor donors, meaningful consent or assent may not be feasible, and permission from parents or legal guardians is considered acceptable. Adverse events, albeit extremely small, can be associated with bone marrow harvest in pediatric donors. Donor safety concerns potentially increase with multiple bone marrow harvests. Very little is known about multiple bone marrow harvests from pediatric donors. We describe the ethical considerations and clinical decision-making in an unusual clinical situation where three patients with the same primary immunodeficiency were HLA identical to one another and their younger sibling, who underwent bone marrow harvests three times between 1.3 and 4 years of age, resulting in successful transplantation for all three patients. We hope that this experience will provide guidance to providers and families in a similar situation.

Cancer donor preferences for disposition of their biospecimens after biobank closure.

BACKGROUND: Biobank funding is unstable and biobank administrators are concerned about loss of funding and subsequent biobank closure. Nevertheless, only a minority of biobanks have policies regarding the distribution or destruction of tissue if the biobank were to close. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to report on the preferences of oncology biospecimen donors regarding the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. METHODS: A total of 98 biospecimen donors who were diagnosed with cancer at the Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital or the Winship Cancer Institute were interviewed concerning their preferences for the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. RESULTS: The majority of biospecimen donors who expressed a preference (62 of 83 donors; 75%) wanted their biological materials transferred to another biobank, specifically an academic bank or a national bank. The most unacceptable options for the handling of tissue were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank (39 of 98 donors; 40%) or a biobank based outside of the United States (31 of 98 donors; 32%). Nonwhite participants were more likely to view the transfer of their tissue to a for-profit/pharmaceutical tissue bank, international tissue bank, or a national tissue bank as unacceptable compared with white participants. CONCLUSIONS: According to these biospecimen donors, the most acceptable options for the handling of biospecimens after biobank closure were transfer to an academic or national bank. The most objectionable options were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank or a biobank based outside of the United States. These findings can be used as the basis for educational interventions directed at the public and can inform the policies of biobanks that serve oncology research. Cancer 2017;123:4648-4652. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations. METHODS: Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication. CONCLUSIONS: The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Using Metaphors to Explain Molecular Testing to Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing to identify targetable molecular alterations is routine practice for several types of cancer. Explaining the underlying molecular concepts can be difficult, and metaphors historically have been used in medicine to provide a common language between physicians and patients. Although previous studies have highlighted the use and effectiveness of metaphors to help explain germline genetic concepts to the general public, this study is the first to describe the use of metaphors to explain molecular testing to cancer patients in the clinical setting. METHODS: Oncologist-patient conversations about molecular testing were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. If a metaphor was used, patients were asked to explain it and assess its helpfulness. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients participated. Nine oncologists used metaphors to describe molecular testing; 25 of 66 (38%) participants heard a metaphor, 13 of 25 (52%) were questioned, 11 of 13 (85%) demonstrated understanding and reported the metaphor as being useful. Seventeen metaphors (bus driver, boss, switch, battery, circuit, broken light switch, gas pedal, key turning off an engine, key opening a lock, food for growth, satellite and antenna, interstate, alternate circuit, traffic jam, blueprint, room names, Florida citrus) were used to explain eight molecular testing terms (driver mutations, targeted therapy, hormones, receptors, resistance, exon specificity, genes, and cancer signatures). CONCLUSION: Because metaphors have proven to be a useful communication tool in other settings, these 17 metaphors may be useful for oncologists to adapt to their own setting to explain molecular testing terms. The Oncologist 2017;22:445-449Implications for Practice: This article provides a snapshot of 17 metaphors that proved useful in describing 8 complicated molecular testing terms at 3 sites. As complex tumor sequencing becomes standard of care in clinics and widely used in clinical research, the use of metaphors may prove a useful communication tool, as it has in other settings. Although this study had a small sample, almost all of the patients who were exposed to metaphors in explaining molecular testing reported it as being helpful to their understanding. These 17 metaphors are examples of potentially useful communication tools that oncologists can adapt to their own practice.

Impact of individual clinical outcomes on trial participants' perspectives on enrollment in emergency research without consent.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients are generally accepting of their enrollment in trials for emergency care conducted under exception from informed consent. It is unknown whether individuals with more severe initial injuries or worse clinical outcomes have different perspectives. Determining whether these differences exist may help to structure post-enrollment interactions. METHODS: Primary clinical data from the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were matched to interview data from the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study. Answers to three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study were analyzed in the context of enrolled patients' initial injury severity (initial Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score) and principal clinical outcomes (Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale relative to initial injury severity). The three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study addressed participants' general attitude toward inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial (general trial inclusion), their specific attitude toward being included in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under the exception from informed consent (personal exception from informed consent enrollment), and their attitude toward the use of exception from informed consent in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial in general (general exception from informed consent enrollment). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was performed to provide contextualization and to determine the extent to which respondents framed their attitudes in terms of clinical experience. RESULTS: Clinical data from Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were available for all 74 patients represented in the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study (including 46 patients for whom the surrogate was interviewed due to the patient's cognitive status or death). No significant difference was observed regarding acceptance of general trial inclusion or acceptance of general exception from informed consent enrollment between participants with favorable neurological outcomes and those with unfavorable outcomes relative to initial injury. Agreement with personal enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent, however, was significantly higher among participants with favorable outcomes compared to those with unfavorable outcomes (89% vs 59%, p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant relationship between more severe initial injury and increased acceptance of personal exception from informed consent enrollment ( p = 0.040) or general exception from informed consent use ( p = 0.034) in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial. Many individuals referenced personal experience as a basis for their attitudes, but these references were not used to support negative views. CONCLUSION: Patients and surrogates of patients with unfavorable clinical outcomes were somewhat less accepting of their own inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent than were patients or surrogates of patients with favorable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest a need to identify optimal strategies for communicating with patients and their surrogates regarding exception from informed consent enrollment when clinical outcomes are poor.

Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach.

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

Access to Children's Oncology Group and Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium phase 1 clinical trials: Racial/ethnic dissimilarities in participation.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 clinical trials introduce new therapies to humans with the goal of establishing their safety. A prior Children's Oncology Group (COG) study analyzed the proportional enrollment of patients by race, ethnicity, sex, and age for all trial phases. The current study evaluated the representation of patients by race, ethnicity, sex, and age in phase 1 clinical trials. METHODS: This study evaluated 1348 children with 128 diagnoses enrolled in COG and Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium phase 1 clinical trials in the United States from February 28, 2000 to December 29, 2008. Observed and expected proportions were calculated according to an established methodology with a representative population from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, which included 27,766 children with the same International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (third edition) diagnostic codes. RESULTS: Underrepresentation in phase 1 trials was seen for lymphohematopoietic (LH) tumors (9.3% observed vs 37% expected) versus solid tumors (90.6% observed vs 63% expected). Although representation was fairly proportional, Hispanics (12.6% observed vs 27% expected), particularly Hispanic females (6% observed vs 18% expected), were significantly underrepresented. The 0- to 4-year age group was underrepresented (11.7% observed vs 36.5% expected). By tumor type, the most significantly underrepresented groups were 0- to 4-year-old children and Hispanics for both solid cancers (11% observed vs 34.4% expected for 0- to 4-year-old children and 12% observed vs 24% expected for Hispanics) and LH cancers (16% observed vs 40% expected for 0- to 4-year-old children and 19.4% observed vs 33% expected for Hispanics). CONCLUSIONS: Although sex and racial/ethnic groups are mostly proportionally represented in phase 1 trials, some specific subgroups such as Hispanic children are underrepresented and may benefit from focused accrual. Cancer 2016;122:3207-14. © 2016 American Cancer Society.