title: Moral justification of Phase 1 oncology trials.
abstract: This article attempts to answer the following normative questions: Can one consider the design of Phase 1 trials ethically appropriate due to the unfavorable ratio of risks and benefits? What are some ethical safeguards for Phase 1 oncology research? A comparative review of literature contributed to the consolidation of the proposed ethical framework for Phase 1 oncology trials. This framework gives a special attention to issues of therapeutic misconception and vulnerability. The benefits and dangers associated with the enrollment in trials are described as well as the absence of alternatives, treatment-specific optimism, and vagueness in factual presentation during the informed consent process. The notion of therapeutic misconception is contrasted with optimism despite realism that stems from psychological, cultural, and religious factors and not necessarily from the lack of information. Close attention is given to the possible ways in which the inherent uncertainty and resulting cognitive biases may affect the informed consent process and the definition of therapeutic misconception. The article ends with recommendations for an ethical way of enrolling palliative patients in early stages of oncology research, giving special attention to provision of adequate consent, protection of vulnerability, and avoidance of therapeutic misconception.
authors.forename: Alex
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dubov
mesh_terms: D017321:Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000379:methods; D012107:Research Design; D055990:Therapeutic Misconception; D035501:Uncertainty
keywords: Phase 1 oncology trials; informed consent; risk-benefit ratio; therapeutic misconception; vulnerability