Suppr超能文献

利益相关者对癌症纳米医学首次人体试验中受试者选择的看法。

Stakeholder views on participant selection for first-in-human trials in cancer nanomedicine.

作者信息

Satalkar P, Elger B S, Shaw D M

机构信息

Institute for Biomedical Ethics, Basel, Switzerland.

出版信息

Curr Oncol. 2016 Dec;23(6):e530-e537. doi: 10.3747/co.23.3214. Epub 2016 Dec 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Participant selection for first-in-human (fih) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for fih trials in cancer nanomedicine.

METHODS

We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in fih nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a fih cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one.

RESULTS

Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into fih trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into fih trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus.

摘要

背景

首次人体试验(FIH)的受试者选择涉及复杂的决策。试验设计使得受试者不太可能获得具有临床相关性的治疗益处,但他们很可能会经历各种程度和类型的风险。本文的目的是描述和讨论研究者及伦理委员会成员对于癌症纳米医学FIH试验中受试者选择的观点。

方法

我们从一项探索性定性研究中获取见解,该研究对欧洲和北美的46名参与纳米医学FIH试验的关键利益相关者进行了深入访谈的主题分析。本研究借鉴了对21名研究者和伦理委员会成员的访谈子集,这些人要么进行过或审查过癌症纳米医学FIH试验,要么正在计划进行此类试验。

结果

研究者和伦理委员会成员了解将晚期癌症患者纳入FIH试验的伦理标准,但他们仍然对此做法提出质疑并给出反对理由。

结论

虽然将无治疗选择的晚期癌症患者纳入研究性化疗分子的FIH试验是一种标准且在伦理上被接受的做法,但这样做可能会威胁试验的有效性和普遍性,从而削弱转化研究。另一种可能性是分层纳入疾病程度较轻但显示某些生物标志物或癌症基因型且疾病特征与临床前研究中所测试的相似的患者。后一种方法可能是迈向个性化医学研究和靶向药物开发的一步。这种患者选择方法需要多方利益相关者进行讨论以达成科学和伦理共识。

相似文献

4
Challenges of clinical translation in nanomedicine: A qualitative study.纳米医学临床翻译的挑战:一项定性研究。
Nanomedicine. 2016 May;12(4):893-900. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2015.12.376. Epub 2016 Jan 6.
7
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

2
Important ethical issues for nanomedicine.纳米医学的重要伦理问题。
J Res Med Sci. 2017 Dec 26;22:138. doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_856_17. eCollection 2017.

本文引用的文献

1
Challenges of clinical translation in nanomedicine: A qualitative study.纳米医学临床翻译的挑战:一项定性研究。
Nanomedicine. 2016 May;12(4):893-900. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2015.12.376. Epub 2016 Jan 6.
2
Involving Advocates in Cancer Research.让倡导者参与癌症研究。
Semin Oncol. 2015 Oct;42(5):681-5. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2015.07.008. Epub 2015 Jul 9.
4
Participant selection for preventive Regenerative Medicine trials: ethical challenges of selecting individuals at risk.
J Med Ethics. 2015 Nov;41(11):914-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102625. Epub 2015 Sep 4.
7
The structure of clinical translation: efficiency, information, and ethics.临床翻译的结构:效率、信息与伦理。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Mar-Apr;45(2):27-39. doi: 10.1002/hast.433. Epub 2015 Jan 27.
8
Cancer nanomedicines: closing the translational gap.癌症纳米药物:弥合转化差距。
Lancet. 2014 Dec 20;384(9961):2175-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61457-4. Epub 2014 Dec 19.
10
The social value of clinical research.临床研究的社会价值。
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Sep 5;15:66. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-66.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验