× Close
Medical research

Unethical cancer trials in India may have led to 254 pointless deaths, claims American doctor

But researchers behind the study say that their findings have led to the implementation of large-scale cervical cancer screenings across the developing world.

Cervical cancer is recognised as one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths among Indian women, killing an average of 72,000 women every year. Since 1997, however, at least 254 such deaths may have occurred because Indian women from lower-income groups were misinformed and not given basic pre-cancer screening tests even as they participated in research studies on cervical cancer.

This is a contention that Dr Eric Suba, an American pathologist and medical ethics proponent, has been making for several years in relation to three major long-term cervical cancer studies conducted in India between 1997 and 2012. All three studies received funding from prominent agencies in the United States: the US National Cancer Institute and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They were conducted by reputed institutions, namely the Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai and the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. They were conducted on 363,553 women – all from lower-income backgrounds – from Mumbai, Osmanabad district in Maharashtra and Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu.

Dr Suba’s contentions that the studies were "scientifically gratuitous" and ethically questionable have received considerable attention in international medical circles in the past few years, but were virtually unheard of in India.

On February 4, in a bid to draw more public attention to the controversy, Suba presented his analysis of the three studies in a lecture on the ethics of international public health research at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital. “In my opinion, these studies are the worst betrayals of science and ethics anywhere in the world in the 21st century,” alleged Suba in an interview with Scroll.in two days before his Mumbai lecture.

However, doctors from Tata Memorial Hospital, who were also present at the lecture, refuted Suba's claims and maintained that the studies were not unethical and have in fact led to the implementation of large-scale cervical cancer screenings across the developing world.

Putting women at risk of death?

Suba, who also heads the non-profit Viet/American Cervical Cancer Prevention Project, spent several years pushing for Pap smear screenings at the public-health level to prevent cervical cancer in Vietnam, and these efforts have borne fruit in the past 15 years. Across the world, he says, the medical community has long established that screening women for pre-cancerous lesions – through tests like the Pap smear, the HPV, or visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) – and then treating those lesions, successfully prevents the development of cervical cancer later.

The main problem with the three studies in India, said Suba, is that they compared one group of women who received some form of screening for pre-cancerous lesions (the “intervention” group) with another group of women who received no screening at all (the “control” group). At the outset, the presence of the control group would imply that the studies broadly aimed to determine which group showed lower incidences of cervical cancer and lower rates of cancer deaths.

This, according to Suba, is an instance of “contemplating a question that has already been answered”, making the studies “scientifically pointless”: since screening is already a medically well-established means of detecting lesions that could later develop into cancer, it is obvious that the unscreened control groups would show higher incidences of cancer and higher death rates.

More disturbingly, says Suba, not screening women in the control group effectively meant letting potential lesions go undetected. If those lesions then developed into cervical cancer, the unscreened women would be diagnosed with the disease only at a later stage, when symptoms such as pelvic pain or vaginal bleeding became apparent. This is tantamount to putting participants at risk for cancer and death for the sake of a research study.

If Suba’s contention is legitimate, then the human cost of the three research trials is staggering. Of the 363,553 women who signed up for the trials, 138,624 were in the control group. Of these, 254 eventually died of cervical cancer. The intervention groups had a larger number of women – 224,929 – and of them, 208 died of cancer.

“All over the world, in cervical cancer trials, all participating women are screened, and different groups are created to study the effectiveness of different forms of screening tests,” said Suba, who believes the 138,624 women in the control groups of the studies were victims of misinformation, because no well-informed woman would wilfully choose the risks of cancer and death. “How could women choose to participate in the no-screening group and still be informed?”

Ironically, in a paper defending their stance, the doctors who conducted the studies claimed that the aim of the trials was to “provide an affordable, feasible, effective and evidence-based way of preventing cervical cancer in low and middle-income countries”. After Suba's February 4 lecture, Dr Rajendra Badwe, the director of the Tata Memorial Centre and one of the doctors on the team that conducted the Mumbai study, said that the aim of that study was "mortality reduction".

According to Suba, this actually legitimises his claim that the control group was, in fact, redundant, because deciding against screening women is not a way to prevent cervical cancer or reduce mortality.

Relative standards of care?

The three studies that Suba has been questioning in various academic papers since 2004 have been published in reputed medical journals. The doctors heading the trials have presented them at international forums as landmark studies that have led to the implementation of large-scale cervical cancer screening not just in India but also in other developing countries.

The doctors behind the studies – most notably Dr Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan and Dr Surendra Shastri – have refuted and dismissed Suba’s allegations in a joint paper published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in June 2014.

Their paper – a response to Suba’s own paper published in the same journal – argues that women in the control groups, in Mumbai as well as the other two studies, were not misinformed, but offered cancer education in their local languages.

“In our studies, the control group women were taught about cervical precursor lesions and cancer and how it can be detected early through screening and prevented, and they were given information on where they can seek screening,” said Dr Sankaranarayanan, the head of the cancer screening group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in an email to Scroll.in.

The US National Cancer Institute, which funded the Mumbai trials with grants amounting to $2.6 million from 1997 to 2014, also told Scroll.in that the participants were "educated" about cancer screening: "All women enrolled in the trial, in the experimental and control groups, received education about cancer screening and had access to cancer screening, if they sought it, at Tata Memorial Hospital."

These women were not actively screened for pre-cancerous lesions because the control group was meant to represent the regular standard of care for cervical cancer screening in India – as opposed to the intervention group, which would represent the higher standards of care given through one form of screening or the other.

In a 2014 interview with Global Oncology about the Mumbai study, Dr Surendra Shastri claimed that “since the standard of care for cervical cancer screening in India is no screening, we were ethically justified in having a no-screening control group”. For many medical ethicists, this itself is a controversial argument, as they believe that standards of care cannot be relative to the economic situation of a country.

Relative standards of care?

The ethical questions that Suba has raised have, in recent years, drawn more media attention and concern from organisations in the field of research ethics. In 2011, Suba filed a complaint against the Mumbai study by Tata Memorial Hospital with the US government’s Office for Human Research Protections. Unlike the Osmanabad and Dindigul district studies that were funded by the private Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the 15-year Mumbai study was funded by US government’s National Cancer Institute and could thus be investigated by another US government agency.

Suba’s complaint was that using death rates as a “yardstick” for the study’s success was unethical and “scientifically gratuitous”, and that the participating women – particularly those in the no-screening control group – were misinformed.

After investigating Suba’s complaint, the OHRP in 2012 found informed consent had not been satisfactorily taken from participating women. In an official letter to the Tata Memorial Hospital research team, the OHRP stated: "We determined that the subjects were not adequately informed of the alternative procedures or courses of treatment regarding screening for breast cancer or cervical cancer, namely, mammography and Pap testing...we determined that the subjects were not provided, in writing, with information about the possible alternative of seeking...screening outside of the research."

As per the OHRP’s requirements for corrective action, the women in the control group of the Mumbai study were eventually screened for lesions – but by this time, the 15-year study period was already over and several of the women had died.

“Through all of this, the researchers did not think it necessary to inform the women and their families about the fact that they had been misinformed,” said Suba.

Commercial interests alleged

At the start of the three studies, the researchers had contended that Pap smears were not a feasible screening option for lower and middle-income nations like India. They now claim that their studies have successfully popularised other screening tests like HPV and VIA in these nations, particularly VIA, an acetic acid-based test.

“After the three studies, there is increasingly more implementation of VIA-based screening in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Sikkim and in certain regions of India,” said Sankaranarayanan, who claims the studies have also led to the implementation of national-level screening programmes with VIA or HPV testing in at least 14 African countries and multiple Latin American nations. “These studies are regarded very highly in scientific and public health circles globally.”

Suba, meanwhile, is not so sure if the lives of low-income women in India have changed much since the trials. “The political purpose behind allowing such research is to give power to research and commercial interests, like companies producing HPV vaccines,” he alleged.

In the Osmanabad study, says Suba, researchers used an HPV test brand called Hybrid Capture 2, which is now being sold in India at a price of approximately Rs 2,000 per test. The Pap smear test, he claims, is much cheaper than that, at roughly Rs 80 per test, but this has not been prominently reported in the media. Pap smears, says Suba, are in fact a feasible means of detecting pre-cancerous lesions.

For now, Suba is waiting for the US Office of Research Integrity – another government-run ethics watchdog – to complete its investigation into the Mumbai study. The investigation began in May 2015 and may take a few years. “Meanwhile, I am trying to get leading physicians across the world to speak out about this,” he said.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BULLETIN BY 

45% consumers purchase financial products online according to our survey. Here’s why

How one of the last bastions of offline transactions is rapidly moving online.

With flight bookings, shopping and buying movie tickets all moving online, it was only a matter of time before purchasing financial products followed suit. In fact, with greater safety, better user interfaces, simpler processes and of course, busier lives, many Indians are opting to buy financial products like insurance and bank deposits online and on-the-go rather than at a bank branch.

We conducted a survey among 150 consumers in 4 metro cities (Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore and Ahmedabad) and 2 tier-II cities (Indore and Bhopal) to understand the financial products Indians are buying online and their needs.

The market for financial products still has huge potential for growth with 29% respondents reporting that they owned no financial instruments. Insurance is without a doubt the most widely owned financial instrument for Indians. Nearly half the sample—45% of the respondents—reported investing in insurance. Apart from that, around 27% invested in bank deposits like Fixed and Recurring Deposits and only 13% opted for mutual funds, 13% bought stocks, and just 10% took home loans. While many people still consume financial products only at their bank branches, a large number have started seeking financial information and buying financial instruments online.

The shifting tide

We found that 45% of the survey respondents bought financial products online, indicating that a large chunk of Indians is trusting the internet to manage something as sensitive as their financial investments. It is clear that Indians value the distinct advantages of transacting online. Convenience is an integral part of the experience—60% of those who bought financial products online felt that convenience played an important role in choosing to purchase online. Multiple aspects of convenience resonate with buyers—over 40% felt that the availability of 24/7 services and the ease of comparing different products from drove them to buy online.

However, findings also reveal some concerns that even tech-savvy Indians have with the online medium.

Security is king

Understandably, security is a key factor for buyers of financial products. Even among the 45% who purchased financial products online, almost half felt that the lack of security prevented them from buying more financial products online. Tellingly, the most commonly bought financial product online is general insurance. It has to be bought (in the case of travel) or renewed (in the case of car insurance) regularly and quickly, which is easier done online. It also doesn’t require the submission of too many personal documents—another­ factor reported by many as a barrier to online purchase of financial products.

To overcome these security concerns, many companies are taking concrete steps to improve the online security of their portals. They are setting up SSL security systems that encrypt and protect the user’s data and payments and are educating customers on how to recognize online payment scams. Thus, people are slowly moving towards buying high involvement financial items like life insurance as well online.

The human factor

Research is a crucial part of the buying process, and most buyers seek information from multiple sources. While research for several consumer products like electronics and furniture has moved online even if purchase is offline, financial products have been slower to move, especially due to the need for expertise. From the sample, 55% rated talking to financial consultants and advisors as very important. Similarly, 55% rated advice from friends and family as very important.

As is evident, while the world is going online, there is something to be said for the familiarity and comfort of human interaction. Even online buyers value non-digital channels of communication. Of those who bought financial products online, 25% felt that visiting bank branches was important, 30% felt that recommendations from friends and family was important, and 33% felt that discussing it with financial advisors was important.

However, we find that online forums and aggregators are also gaining in terms of people using them to research products. According to a BCG report, search queries on life and health insurance have grown 4.5 times from 2008 to 2013, showing that digital is certainly influencing the research part of the buying cycle. Many life insurance companies and banks have caught on to this trend and are finding ways of making customer service executives available online through chat facilities on their portals. Additionally, companies are also investing in a better online user experience by designing their websites to be simple, attractive and easy-to-understand, so that the process of purchase becomes easier for customers.

When it comes to buying insurance, finding an appropriate plan is not an easy process. Life insurance companies are using technology and algorithms to overcome these human biases with innovative products like life insurance calculators. An example of this is the HDFC Life insurance profiler which simplifies the process of choosing an insurance plan. A person can enter five to six parameters and get an objective opinion on the best insurance plan suited to his or her time and status in life.

HDFC Life Insurance has also taken detailed note of its customers’ requirements as they move towards the digital age. Its product website has been designed to ensure consumers feel secure and well attended to when transacting online. All payment gateways have SSL security and are ISO 27001 certified to ensure optimum security. Additionally, to facilitate easy query resolution, it offers an online chat function along with co-browsing where a user can give control of her or her system to the chat executive so that details can be filled in for them. To solve for the barrier of document submission, HDFC Life even allows users to submit documents through e-mail or upload files on Google drive in place of hard copies. Easy e-KYC facilities allow for the Aadhar card and address proof to be uploaded online to quickly verify identity. To find the right insurance plan for yourself and experience the innovative services that the organization has to proffer head to their insurance profiler to start your journey towards buying a life insurance plan.


This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of HDFC Life and not by the Scroll editorial team.

× Close