Liza-Marie Johnson1, Angela C Leek2, Dennis Drotar3, Robert B Noll4, Susan R Rheingold5, Eric D Kodish6, Justin N Baker1,7. 1. Division of Quality of Life and Palliative Care, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 2. Department of Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 4. Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Center for Ethics, Humanities, and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to explain pediatric phase 1 oncology trials to families of children with refractory cancer. Parents may misunderstand the information presented to them, and physicians may assume that certain topics are covered in the informed consent document and need not be discussed. Communication models can help to ensure effective discussions. METHODS: Suggestions for improving the informed consent process were first solicited from phase 1 study clinicians via questionnaire. Eight parents who had enrolled their child on a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial were recruited for an advisory group designed to assess the clinicians' suggestions and make additional recommendations for improving informed consent for pediatric phase 1 trials. RESULTS: A phase 1 communication model was designed to incorporate the suggestions of clinicians and families. It focused on educating parents/families about phase 1 trials at specific time points during a child's illness, but specifically at the point of disease recurrence. An informative phase 1 fact sheet that can be distributed to families was also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Families who will be offered information regarding phase 1 clinical trials can first receive a standardized fact sheet explaining the general purpose of these early-phase clinical trials. Parental understanding may be enhanced further when oncologists address key themes, beginning at the time of diagnosis and continuing through important decision points during the child's illness. This model should be prospectively evaluated.
BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to explain pediatric phase 1 oncology trials to families of children with refractory cancer. Parents may misunderstand the information presented to them, and physicians may assume that certain topics are covered in the informed consent document and need not be discussed. Communication models can help to ensure effective discussions. METHODS: Suggestions for improving the informed consent process were first solicited from phase 1 study clinicians via questionnaire. Eight parents who had enrolled their child on a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial were recruited for an advisory group designed to assess the clinicians' suggestions and make additional recommendations for improving informed consent for pediatric phase 1 trials. RESULTS: A phase 1 communication model was designed to incorporate the suggestions of clinicians and families. It focused on educating parents/families about phase 1 trials at specific time points during a child's illness, but specifically at the point of disease recurrence. An informative phase 1 fact sheet that can be distributed to families was also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Families who will be offered information regarding phase 1 clinical trials can first receive a standardized fact sheet explaining the general purpose of these early-phase clinical trials. Parental understanding may be enhanced further when oncologists address key themes, beginning at the time of diagnosis and continuing through important decision points during the child's illness. This model should be prospectively evaluated.
Authors: Tsiao Yi Yap; Amy D Yamokoski; Sabahat Hizlan; Stephen J Zyzanski; Anne L Angiolillo; Susan R Rheingold; Justin N Baker; Eric D Kodish Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Scott H Maurer; Pamela S Hinds; Sheri L Spunt; Wayne L Furman; Javier R Kane; Justin N Baker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pamela S Hinds; Linda L Oakes; Judy Hicks; Brent Powell; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Sheri L Spunt; Joann Harper; Justin N Baker; Nancy K West; Wayne L Furman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca A Hazen; Stephen Zyzanski; Justin N Baker; Dennis Drotar; Eric Kodish Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Katherine W Gonzalez; Obinna O Adibe; Brian G Dalton; Amita A Desai; Susan W Sharp; Shawn D St Peter Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Angela M Feraco; Sarah R Brand; Jennifer W Mack; Jennifer C Kesselheim; Susan D Block; Joanne Wolfe Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 3.167