Jonathan M Marron1,2,3,4, Steven G DuBois5,6, Julia Glade Bender7, AeRang Kim8, Brian D Crompton5,6, Stephanie C Meyer5, Katherine A Janeway5,6, Jennifer W Mack5,6,9. 1. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts. jonathan_marron@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. jonathan_marron@dfci.harvard.edu. 3. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. jonathan_marron@dfci.harvard.edu. 4. Office of Ethics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. jonathan_marron@dfci.harvard.edu. 5. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia. 9. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic tumor profiling (GTP) plays an important role in the care of many adult cancer patients. Its role in pediatric oncology is still evolving, with only a subset of patients currently expected to receive clinically significant results. Little is known about perspectives of pediatric oncology patients/parents on GTP. PROCEDURE: We surveyed individuals who previously underwent GTP through the iCat (Individualized Cancer Therapy) pilot study of molecular profiling in children with relapsed, refractory, and high-risk solid tumors at four pediatric cancer centers. Following return of profiling results, a cross-sectional survey was offered to the patient, if he or she was 18 years or older at enrollment, or parent, if he or she was under 18 years of age. Forty-five surveys (85% response) were completed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of respondents reported hoping participation would help find cures for future patients, while 59% (26/44) hoped it would increase their/their child's chance of cure. Most had few concerns about GTP, but 12% (5/43) worried they would learn their/their child's cancer was less treatable or more aggressive than previously thought. Sixty-four percent (29/45) reported feeling their participation had helped others and 44% (20/45) felt they had helped themselves/their own child, despite only one substudy subject receiving targeted therapy matched to GTP findings. Fifty-four percent (21/39) wished to receive all available profiling data, including findings unrelated to cancer and of unclear significance. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in pediatric GTP research perceive benefits of GTP to themselves and others, but expectations of personal benefits of GTP may exceed actual positive impact. These issues warrant consideration during consent discussions about GTP research participation.
BACKGROUND:Genomic tumor profiling (GTP) plays an important role in the care of many adult cancerpatients. Its role in pediatric oncology is still evolving, with only a subset of patients currently expected to receive clinically significant results. Little is known about perspectives of pediatric oncology patients/parents on GTP. PROCEDURE: We surveyed individuals who previously underwent GTP through the iCat (Individualized Cancer Therapy) pilot study of molecular profiling in children with relapsed, refractory, and high-risk solid tumors at four pediatric cancer centers. Following return of profiling results, a cross-sectional survey was offered to the patient, if he or she was 18 years or older at enrollment, or parent, if he or she was under 18 years of age. Forty-five surveys (85% response) were completed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of respondents reported hoping participation would help find cures for future patients, while 59% (26/44) hoped it would increase their/their child's chance of cure. Most had few concerns about GTP, but 12% (5/43) worried they would learn their/their child's cancer was less treatable or more aggressive than previously thought. Sixty-four percent (29/45) reported feeling their participation had helped others and 44% (20/45) felt they had helped themselves/their own child, despite only one substudy subject receiving targeted therapy matched to GTP findings. Fifty-four percent (21/39) wished to receive all available profiling data, including findings unrelated to cancer and of unclear significance. CONCLUSIONS:Participants in pediatric GTP research perceive benefits of GTP to themselves and others, but expectations of personal benefits of GTP may exceed actual positive impact. These issues warrant consideration during consent discussions about GTP research participation.
Authors: Hagop M Kantarjian; Neil P Shah; Jorge E Cortes; Michele Baccarani; Mohan B Agarwal; María Soledad Undurraga; Jianxiang Wang; Juan Julio Kassack Ipiña; Dong-Wook Kim; Michinori Ogura; Carolina Pavlovsky; Christian Junghanss; Jorge H Milone; Franck E Nicolini; Tadeusz Robak; Jan Van Droogenbroeck; Edo Vellenga; M Brigid Bradley-Garelik; Chao Zhu; Andreas Hochhaus Journal: Blood Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Joanne J Lager; Elizabeth R Lyden; James R Anderson; Alberto S Pappo; William H Meyer; Philip P Breitfeld Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Odile Oberlin; Annie Rey; Elizabeth Lyden; Gianni Bisogno; Michael C G Stevens; William H Meyer; Modesto Carli; James R Anderson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jinghui Zhang; Michael F Walsh; Gang Wu; Kim E Nichols; Michael N Edmonson; Tanja A Gruber; John Easton; Dale Hedges; Xiaotu Ma; Xin Zhou; Donald A Yergeau; Mark R Wilkinson; Bhavin Vadodaria; Xiang Chen; Rose B McGee; Stacy Hines-Dowell; Regina Nuccio; Emily Quinn; Sheila A Shurtleff; Michael Rusch; Aman Patel; Jared B Becksfort; Shuoguo Wang; Meaghann S Weaver; Li Ding; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; Amar Gajjar; David W Ellison; Alberto S Pappo; Ching-Hon Pui; James R Downing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah Scollon; Katie Bergstrom; Robin A Kerstein; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Uma Ramamurthy; Richard A Gibbs; Christine M Eng; Murali M Chintagumpala; Stacey L Berg; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Sharon E Plon; D Williams Parsons Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin; Colin Halverson; Jennifer B McCormick; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Stephanie Hines Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2019-08-20
Authors: Jennifer A Oberg; Jenny Ruiz; Trisha Ali-Shaw; Kathryn A Schlechtweg; Angela Ricci; Andrew L Kung; Wendy K Chung; Paul S Appelbaum; Julia L Glade Bender; Jennifer M Levine Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: Eric C Anderson; John DiPalazzo; Emily Edelman; Petra Helbig; Kate Reed; Susan Miesfeldt; Christian Thomas; F Lee Lucas; Anny T H R Fenton; Andrey Antov; Michael J Hall; J Scott Roberts; Jens Rueter; Paul K J Han Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-09-29
Authors: Sarah Scollon; Mary A Majumder; Katie Bergstrom; Tao Wang; Amy L McGuire; Jill O Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; Caroline H Lee; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Sharon E Plon; D Williams Parsons; Richard L Street Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-11-12
Authors: Katianne M Howard Sharp; Niki Jurbergs; Annastasia Ouma; Lynn Harrison; Elsie Gerhardt; Leslie Taylor; Kayla Hamilton; Rose B McGee; Regina Nuccio; Emily Quinn; Stacy Hines-Dowell; Chimene Kesserwan; Anusha Sunkara; Jami S Gattuso; Michelle Pritchard; Belinda Mandrell; Mary V Relling; Cyrine E Haidar; Guolian Kang; Liza M Johnson; Kim E Nichols Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick; Lan Q Le; Natalie J Bartnik; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.452