ABSTRACT
There are many different settings in which you may find yourself having to explain a research study. We increasingly recognise the vast complexity of human cancer; for example, we now appreciate that there are many subtypes of common cancers – breast, lung and colorectal cancer are no longer considered single diseases and, whilst the concept of truly personalised medicine is far off, we are increasingly able to categorise patients into subgroups for whom specific treatments are most appropriate. These new classifications have resulted from the study of biomarkers, which may be assessable from blood but more often require tumour tissue. Explaining the concept of harvesting such tissue by biopsies that are additional to standard procedures should not present you with any particular difficulty. Similarly, if a research study requires additional staging procedures, scans or biopsies, it is usually straightforward to explain the science behind the question,
and the specific procedures involved. The real challenge comes in explaining the concept of clinical trials. A straightforward phase II non-randomised investigation of a new medicine, new dose or new schedule should not be difficult to explain. However, the randomised trial can present real challenges where you have to help patients retain their confidence in you, but you need to explain the unknown outcome of a test between a conventional versus novel intervention or, even more problematic, novel intervention versus placebo or best supportive care.
