Brief fixation does not hamper the reliability of Ki67 analysis in breast cancer core-needle biopsies : A double-centre study

Aims: Immunohistochemical assessment of Ki67 expression in core-needle biopsies (CNBs) is increasingly playing a role in therapeutic decision-making for breast cancer patients. Within the framework of same-day diagnosis of breast lesions, fixation times are markedly decreased. We therefore attempted to validate Ki67 analysis in briefly fixed breast cancer CNBs. Methods and results: CNBs of 136 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer diagnosed through the same-day diagnosis programme of both the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU) and the Radboud University Medical Centre (RUMC) were included. CNBs were fixed in formaldehyde for approximately 45 min at the UMCU and for between 60 and 90 min at the RUMC. Immunohistochemistry for Ki67 expression was compared between the briefly fixed CNBs and conventionally fixed resection specimens of the same tumour. The overall agreement between CNBs and resections was 122 of 142 (85.9%) (κ = 0.71; 95% CI 0.60-0.83). Positive and negative predictive values were 79.7% (95% CI 67-88%) and 91.0% (95% CI 82-96%), respectively. Conclusions: Overall agreement for Ki67 expression was good between briefly fixed CNBs and conventionally fixed resection specimens, and within the range of studies comparing conventionally fixed CNBs and resections

Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions : A systematic review

Implementation of pragmatic design elements in drug development could bridge the evidence gap that currently exists between the knowledge we have regarding the efficacy of a drug versus its true, comparative effectiveness in real life. We performed a review of the literature to identify the ethical challenges thus far related to pragmatic trials. The three central ethical questions identified for pragmatic trials are: (i) what level of oversight should pragmatic trials require; (ii) do randomized patients face additional risks; and (iii) is a waiver of informed consent ethically defensible? Despite the fact all reviewed publications dealt with post-launch pragmatic trials, these results could serve as an important starting point for conceptualizing which challenges could potentially arise in the pre-launch setting

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions

Objectives: Pragmatic trials evaluate the comparative benefits, risks, and burdens of health care interventions in real-world conditions. Such studies are now recognized as valuable to the perimarketing stage of drug development and evaluation, with early pragmatic trials (EPTs) being explored as a means to generate real-world evidence at the time of regulatory market approval. In this article, we present an analysis of the ethical issues involved in informed consent for EPTs, in light of the generally recognized concern that traditional ethical rules governing randomized clinical trials, such as lengthy informed consent procedures, could threaten the “real world” nature of such trials. Specifically, we examine to what extent modifications (waivers or alterations) to regulatory consent for EPTs would be ethical. Methods: We first identify broadly accepted necessary conditions for modifications of informed consent (namely, the research involves no more than minimal risk of harm, the research is impracticable with regulatory consent, and the alternative to regulatory consent does not violate legitimate patient expectations) and then apply those criteria to the premarket and early postmarket contexts. Results and Conclusions: The analysis shows that neither waivers nor alterations of regulatory consent for premarket EPTs will be ethically permissible. For postmarket EPTs with newly approved interventions, waivers of consent will be ethically problematic, but some studies might be conducted in an ethical manner with alterations to regulatory consent

Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms

Abstract Background Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms. Methods We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research. Results We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used. Conclusions While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust

The social value of pragmatic trials

Pragmatic trials aim to directly inform health care decision-making through the collection of so-called ‘real world data’ from observations of comparative treatment effects in clinical practice. In order to ensure the applicability and feasibility of a pragmatic trial, design features may be necessary that deviate from standard research ethics requirements. Examples are traditional requirements to seek written informed consent and to perform extensive data and safety monitoring. Proposals for deviations from standard research ethics practice have resulted in controversy about their ethical acceptability. One of the justifications for altered procedures is the allegedly high social value of pragmatic trials. In order to properly operationalize the concept in the ethical assessment of pragmatic trial designs, specification is warranted. We identified three determinants from common claims about a pragmatic trial’s social value: (1) the extent to which the research question has real world relevance, (2) the trial design’s ability to generate a real world answer and (3) the probability of direct uptake of the results by decision-makers in practice. Subsequently, we discuss how these determinants should be applied to the practice of pragmatic trials, and to what extent they might be applicable to explanatory trials

The social value of pragmatic trials

Pragmatic trials aim to directly inform health care decision-making through the collection of so-called ‘real world data’ from observations of comparative treatment effects in clinical practice. In order to ensure the applicability and feasibility of a pragmatic trial, design features may be necessary that deviate from standard research ethics requirements. Examples are traditional requirements to seek written informed consent and to perform extensive data and safety monitoring. Proposals for deviations from standard research ethics practice have resulted in controversy about their ethical acceptability. One of the justifications for altered procedures is the allegedly high social value of pragmatic trials. In order to properly operationalize the concept in the ethical assessment of pragmatic trial designs, specification is warranted. We identified three determinants from common claims about a pragmatic trial’s social value: (1) the extent to which the research question has real world relevance, (2) the trial design’s ability to generate a real world answer and (3) the probability of direct uptake of the results by decision-makers in practice. Subsequently, we discuss how these determinants should be applied to the practice of pragmatic trials, and to what extent they might be applicable to explanatory trials