The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In an attempt to understand some of the complex issues related to the participation of cancer patients in phase I trials, and the perceptions of patients toward these trials, we conducted a pilot survey study of 30 cancer patients who had given informed consent to participate in a phase I trial at our institution. Concurrently, the oncologists identified by the surveyed patients as responsible for their care were surveyed as well. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven of 30 consecutive patients agreed to and completed the survey. Patients were surveyed before they received any investigational agents. Eighteen oncologists participated in this survey study. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of patients decided to participate in a phase I trial for reasons of possible therapeutic benefit, 11% because of advice/trust of physicians, and 4% because of family pressures. Ninety-three percent said that they understood all (33%) or most (60%) of the information provided about the trials in which they had decided to participate. Only 33% were able to state the purpose of the trial in which they were participating, with patients able to state the purpose of phase I trials being more educated (P = .01). Surveyed oncologists had wide-ranging beliefs regarding expectations of possible benefits and toxicities for their patients participating in phase I trials. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials are strongly motivated by the hope of therapeutic benefit. Altruistic feelings appear to have a limited and inconsequential role in motivating patients to participate in these trials. Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials appear to have an adequate self-perceived knowledge of the risks of investigational agents. However, only a minority of patients appear to have an adequate understanding of the purpose of phase I trials as dose-escalation/dose-determination studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fogel, D. B. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 · Cited by 1,035
The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies
Unger, J. M., Cook, E., Tai, E., & Bleyer, A. (2016) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_156686 · Cited by 665
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand?
Falagas, M. E., Korbila, I. P., Giannopoulou, K. P., Kondilis, B. K., & Peppas, G. (2009) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010 · Cited by 428
Quality of Informed Consent: a New Measure of Understanding Among Research Subjects
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.2.139 · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- Daugherty, C., Ratain, M. J., Grochowski, E., Stocking, C., Kodish, E., Mick, R., & Siegler, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1995-05
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1062-1072
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1830474205
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1062
- The paper
- Daugherty, C., Ratain, M. J., Grochowski, E., Stocking, C., Kodish, E., Mick, R., & Siegler, M. (1995). Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1062
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.