An Expanded Role for IRBs in the Oversight of Research Biopsies

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500141
Laura A. Levit, Julie Kaneshiro, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Mark J. Ratain
{"title":"An Expanded Role for IRBs in the Oversight of Research Biopsies","authors":"Laura A. Levit,&nbsp;Julie Kaneshiro,&nbsp;Jeffrey Peppercorn,&nbsp;Mark J. Ratain","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Research biopsies included in cancer clinical trials have the goal of advancing scientific understanding of the biological bases of cancer and its treatments, but may offer no prospect of direct benefit to participants and often pose more than minimal risk. The research community is examining the ethics of research biopsies increasingly often, especially when they are mandatory for study participation but do not support primary study objectives and thus are “nonintegral” to the study. Ethical concerns center on the limited scientific justification supporting some biopsies, risks to research participants, and the potential for coercion and therapeutic misconception during the informed consent process. There is also a lack of comprehensive oversight of research biopsies by regulatory agencies and institutions. This paper reviews these ethical concerns, discusses the scope of federal oversight, and suggests that institutional review boards (IRBs) should assume a larger role in ensuring the ethical conduct of research biopsies. It concludes with guidance to IRBs on how to weigh the risks, benefits, and acceptability of such biopsies in different contexts that is based on a framework the American Society of Clinical Oncology developed for the inclusion of research biopsies in oncology clinical trials.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"44 5","pages":"32-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research biopsies included in cancer clinical trials have the goal of advancing scientific understanding of the biological bases of cancer and its treatments, but may offer no prospect of direct benefit to participants and often pose more than minimal risk. The research community is examining the ethics of research biopsies increasingly often, especially when they are mandatory for study participation but do not support primary study objectives and thus are “nonintegral” to the study. Ethical concerns center on the limited scientific justification supporting some biopsies, risks to research participants, and the potential for coercion and therapeutic misconception during the informed consent process. There is also a lack of comprehensive oversight of research biopsies by regulatory agencies and institutions. This paper reviews these ethical concerns, discusses the scope of federal oversight, and suggests that institutional review boards (IRBs) should assume a larger role in ensuring the ethical conduct of research biopsies. It concludes with guidance to IRBs on how to weigh the risks, benefits, and acceptability of such biopsies in different contexts that is based on a framework the American Society of Clinical Oncology developed for the inclusion of research biopsies in oncology clinical trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审查委员会在监督研究活组织检查方面的扩大作用
癌症临床试验中的研究活组织检查的目标是促进对癌症生物学基础及其治疗方法的科学理解,但可能无法为参与者提供直接益处,而且往往带来的风险很小。研究界越来越频繁地审查研究活检的伦理,特别是当研究参与是强制性的,但不支持主要研究目标,因此是研究的“非整体”时。伦理问题集中在支持某些活组织检查的有限科学依据、对研究参与者的风险以及在知情同意过程中可能出现的胁迫和治疗误解。监管机构和机构也缺乏对研究活组织检查的全面监督。本文回顾了这些伦理问题,讨论了联邦监督的范围,并建议机构审查委员会(irb)应该在确保研究活检的伦理行为方面发挥更大的作用。它以美国临床肿瘤学会为将研究活检纳入肿瘤临床试验而制定的框架为基础,就如何在不同情况下权衡此类活检的风险、益处和可接受性向irb提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Prospect of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Ethics Review Ethical Issues Faced by Data Monitoring Committees: Results from an Exploratory Qualitative Study The Ethical Case for Decentralized Clinical Trials The European Health Data Space as a Case Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1