Research Ethics Committees identify and correct problems in applications to do cancer trials

Aug 28, 2008

Researchers running cancer trials are often critical of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) process they have to go through to get their trials approved, complaining that it's too complex, burdensome and sometimes unreasonable. In the UK only 17% of research study applications are given immediate favourable opinion by RECs.

But a new study from the University of Leicester, recently reported in The Lancet Oncology, suggests that RECs may sometimes identify important problems in applications to conduct cancer trials.

The Leicester study, funded by the National Research Ethics Service, looked at 80 anonymised NHS REC decision letters concerning cancer trials, written between March 2004 and December 2006.

When reviewing applications to conduct cancer trials, the issue RECs are most likely to raise is that of informed consent. Committees are often concerned that the information that researchers propose to give patients may not be in language that can be easily understood. They also discourage researchers from presenting trials too enthusiastically, and seek to prevent researchers from providing misleading information. One Committee pointed out that the cancer drug side-effects were described as mild on the patient information sheet, but in the investigator's brochure it was noted that several patients had experienced serious adverse events thought to be related to the drug.

The study found that RECs identify a high rate of mistakes in applications, including missing information, ticking the wrong boxes, errors in the information provided and not following correct procedures.

The findings support the conclusion that RECs, though by their constitution somewhat bureaucratic, provide an important independent check on clinical trials by ensuring that investigators do not omit important information or underestimate risks in the information they give patients.

Professor Mary Dixon-Woods, of Medical Sociology in the Department of Health Sciences at the University, commented: "There have been a lot of complaints about REC procedures from researchers in recent years. They often find the process onerous and bureaucratic. However, this study is the first time anyone has systematically analysed what RECs are saying about cancer trial proposals.

"RECs are looking for evidence that researchers are sensitive to ethical issues, in particular to participants' interests, and that information given to potential participants explains the trial fully and truthfully. Researchers can improve their chances of success at ethical review by really good preparation."

Source: University of Leicester

Explore further: Survival differences seen for advanced-stage laryngeal cancer

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cohesin molecule safeguards cell division

Nov 21, 2014

The cohesin molecule ensures the proper distribution of DNA during cell division. Scientists at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP) in Vienna can now prove the concept of its carabiner-like ...

The unknown crocodiles

Nov 21, 2014

Just a few years ago, crocodilians – crocodiles, alligators and their less-known relatives – were mostly thought of as slow, lazy, and outright stupid animals. You may have thought something like that ...

From dried cod to tissue sample preservation

Nov 19, 2014

Could human tissue samples be dried for storage, instead of being frozen? Researchers are looking at the salt cod industry for a potential tissue sample drying technology that could save money without sacrificing tissue quality.

Recommended for you

Survival differences seen for advanced-stage laryngeal cancer

16 minutes ago

The five-year survival rate for advanced-stage laryngeal cancer was higher than national levels in a small study at a single academic center performing a high rate of surgical therapy, including a total laryngectomy (removal ...

Gene test aids cancer profile

9 hours ago

The first round of chemotherapy did little to suppress Ron Bose's leukemia. The second round, with 10 times the dose, knocked the proliferating blast cells down, but only by half.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.