IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v252y2020ics0277953620301684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accomplishing an adaptive clinical trial for cancer: Valuation practices and care work across the laboratory and the clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Swallow, Julia
  • Kerr, Anne
  • Chekar, Choon Key
  • Cunningham-Burley, Sarah

Abstract

A new generation of adaptive, multi-arm clinical trials has been developed in cancer research including those offering experimental treatments to patients based on the genomic analysis of their cancer. Depending on the molecular changes found in patients’ cancer cells, it is anticipated that targeted and personalised therapies will be made available for those who have reached the end of standard treatment options, potentially extending survival time. Results from these trials are also expected to advance genomic knowledge for patients in the future. Drawing on data from a qualitative study of one such trial in the UK, comprising observations of out-patient clinic appointments, out-patient biopsy procedures, laboratory work, and interviews with practitioners, this paper explores how the clinical and research value of one such trial was accomplished in everyday practice by focussing on the work of clinical trials and laboratory staff across recruitment, laboratory analysis, and results management. In the face of numerous potential set-backs, disappointments and failure, we explore how practitioners worked to balance the need to meet established measures of value such as numbers of patients recruited into the trial, alongside cultivating the value of positive affects for patients by managing their expectations and emotions. This care work was performed primarily by practitioners whose roles have historically been devalued in healthcare practice and yet, as we show, were critical to this process. We conclude by arguing that as complex multi-arm adaptive trials become more commonplace, we need to attend to, and render visible, the dynamic and care-full valuation practices of backstage practitioners through which experimental biomedicine is accomplished, and in doing so show that care both achieves clinical and research value, and is also a series of practices and processes that tends to tissue, patients and staff in the context of ever-present possibility of failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Swallow, Julia & Kerr, Anne & Chekar, Choon Key & Cunningham-Burley, Sarah, 2020. "Accomplishing an adaptive clinical trial for cancer: Valuation practices and care work across the laboratory and the clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:252:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301684
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620301684
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112949?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bourret, Pascale & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2011. "Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 816-824, September.
    2. Nelson, Nicole C. & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto & Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana & Basik, Mark, 2014. "Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 74-83.
    3. Haase, Rachel & Michie, Marsha & Skinner, Debra, 2015. "Flexible positions, managed hopes: The promissory bioeconomy of a whole genome sequencing cancer study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 146-153.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cambrosio, Alberto & Campbell, Jonah & Keating, Peter & Bourret, Pascale, 2022. "Multi-polar scripts: Techno-regulatory environments and the rise of precision oncology diagnostic tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    2. Cambrosio, Alberto & Campbell, Jonah & Keating, Peter & Polk, Jessica B. & Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana & Basik, Mark, 2022. "Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as “oncopolicy”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    3. Armstrong, David, 2019. "Diagnosis: From classification to prediction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Bourgain, Catherine & Pourtau, Lionel & Mazouni, Chafika & Bungener, Martine & Bonastre, et Julia, 2020. "Imperfect biomarkers for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer with good prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Tyskbo, Daniel & Sergeeva, Anastasia, 2022. "Brains exposed: How new imaging technology reconfigures expertise coordination in neurosurgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. Sturdy, Steve, 2022. "Framing utility: Regulatory reform and genetic tests in the USA, 1989–2000," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Ross, Emily & Swallow, Julia & Kerr, Anne & Chekar, Choon Key & Cunningham-Burley, Sarah, 2021. "Diagnostic layering: Patient accounts of breast cancer classification in the molecular era," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    8. Polk, Jess B. & Campbell, Jonah & Drilon, Alexander E. & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2023. "Organizing precision medicine: A case study of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's engagement in/with genomics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    9. Mouritsen, Jan & Kreiner, Kristian, 2016. "Accounting, decisions and promises," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 21-31.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:252:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.