Are risks and benefits of oncological research protocols both incommensurable and incompensable?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are legally required to determine whether the balance between the risks and benefits (the risk-benefit ratio or RBR) of a proposed study is "reasonable" or "proportional". This obligation flows from their duty to protect the interests of research subjects. It has been argued that it is difficult, perhaps even impossible for IRBs to determine the RBR of studies, because the risks and benefits are not only heterogeneous, but also incommensurable. After arguing that the relevant meaning of incommensurability is incomparability, we discuss whether the risks of participating in a trial and the benefits are comparable. We conclude that at least the risks and the benefits to participants are comparable. In the last section we show that the main problem of RBR analyses is that of interpersonal incompensability. IRBs have to assume that risks to research subjects be compensated by benefits to others. The question is: To what extent? When does it become unreasonable to ask that patients accept the risks of participating in a trial for the benefit of science and/or future patients?

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study.

OBJECTIVES: There are indications that institutional review board (IRB) members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio (RBR) of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: identification and estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial's RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability. RESULTS: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members' final judgement on the trial's ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits-for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations.

Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the assessment of risk/benefit ratios for phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 53 IRB members from six research hospitals and specialized cancer centers in The Netherlands. RESULTS: While the toxicity and side-effects of treatment were most often identified as risks associated with participating in a phase II trial, approximately two-thirds of IRB members also cited psychosocial and/or quality-of-life risks. Conversely, 68% of the respondents identified psychosocial benefits of trial participation, while 25% cited treatment effectiveness as a possible benefit. Between one-quarter and two-thirds of respondents indicated that trial protocols provide insufficient information regarding the likelihood, magnitude and duration of both risks and benefits. Between 15% and 34% of IRB members reported feeling less than fully competent at evaluating various aspects of phase II protocols (e.g. originality and feasibility of the study, adequacy of the methods and analysis procedures, etc.). This was particularly the case for non-physician IRB members. Few IRB members reported weighing risks and benefits in a systematic manner, but rather relied on global impressions or preferred to leave such matters to the IRB as a whole or to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of IRB members believes that trial protocols provide too little information relevant to evaluating various cost/benefit and scientific issues, and feels less than fully competent in carrying out such evaluations. IRB members are more likely to identify psychosocial benefits than physical health benefits that may accrue to patients participating in phase II trials.