A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer clinical trials. A position paper of the ARCAD Group

Background In respect of the principle of autonomy and the right of self-determination, obtaining an informed consent of potential participants before their inclusion in a study is a fundamental ethical obligation. The variations in national laws, regulations, and cultures contribute to complex informed consent documents for patients participating in clinical trials. Currently, only few ethics committees seem willing to address the complexity and the length of these documents and to request investigators and sponsors to revise them in a way to make them understandable for potential participants. The purpose of this work is to focus on the written information in the informed consent documentation for drug development clinical trials and suggests (i) to distinguish between necessary and not essential information, (ii) to define the optimal format allowing the best legibility of those documents. Methods The Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive (ARCAD) Group, an international scientific committee involving oncologists from all over the world, addressed these issues and developed and uniformly accepted a simplified informed consent documentation for future clinical research. Results A simplified form of informed consent with the leading part of 1200–1800 words containing all of the key information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements and ‘relevant supportive information appendix’ of 2000–3000 words is provided. Conclusions This position paper, on the basis of the ARCAD Group experts discussions, proposes our informed consent model and the rationale for its content.

[1]  Z. Bánkowski Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences , 2019, Cobert's Manual of Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance.

[2]  R. Labianca,et al.  A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer clinical trials. A position paper of the ARCAD Group , 2017, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  S. Korenman Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  C. Grady Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  C. Tournigand,et al.  Individual patient data analysis of progression-free survival versus overall survival as a first-line end point for metastatic colorectal cancer in modern randomized trials: findings from the analysis and research in cancers of the digestive system database. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  D. Sargent,et al.  Association of age with survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  S. Koyfman,et al.  Consent form heterogeneity in cancer trials: the cooperative group and institutional review board gap. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  J. Mandal,et al.  Ethics and clinical research , 2011, Tropical parasitology.

[9]  J. Menikoff Void for vagueness: a problem in research consent? , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[10]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  What oncologists tell patients about survival benefits of palliative chemotherapy and implications for informed consent: qualitative study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[12]  R. Holcombe,et al.  Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.