Andrew G Shuman1,2,3,4, Michele C Gornick2, Collin Brummel1,3, Madison Kent2,3, Kayte Spector-Bagdady2,5, Elliot Biddle3, Carol R Bradford1,3,4, J Chad Brenner1,3,4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Michigan Otolaryngology and Translational Oncology Laboratory, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The advent of precision oncology complicates how clinicians and participants understand how clinical care and research interface. Here we examine how key stakeholders perceive the utility of, and evaluate the decision to participate in, genomic sequencing head and neck cancer research. The goal of this study was to highlight unique considerations for our community as this type of research proliferates across the country. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multimethod qualitative and quantitative embedded ethics protocol. SETTING: Single-institution National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multimethod study using paired surveys and semistructured interviews among patients and providers involved in a prospective precision head and neck oncology sequencing protocol (116 survey patient-participants, response rate 82%) with 18 interviewees. RESULTS: Participants were generally enthusiastic about enrollment in research, both to help future patients and as a way of giving back to the community. They described reliance on information from and trust in their cancer doctor regarding the decision to participate in research, but paradoxically there was discordance in how doctors and patients reported their respective influence in the decision-making process. Clinicians also stressed the importance in separating clinical and research-informed consent processes, although patients did not describe this tension. CONCLUSION: As we enter an era of increasing personalized medicine and targeted therapies, the relationship between clinicians, scientists, and patients plays a larger role in how we individualize and contextualize cancer research. Our data are another step toward the ultimate goal of respecting and protecting patients as participants in head and neck translational oncology.
OBJECTIVE: The advent of precision oncology complicates how clinicians and participants understand how clinical care and research interface. Here we examine how key stakeholders perceive the utility of, and evaluate the decision to participate in, genomic sequencing head and neck cancer research. The goal of this study was to highlight unique considerations for our community as this type of research proliferates across the country. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multimethod qualitative and quantitative embedded ethics protocol. SETTING: Single-institution National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multimethod study using paired surveys and semistructured interviews among patients and providers involved in a prospective precision head and neck oncology sequencing protocol (116 survey patient-participants, response rate 82%) with 18 interviewees. RESULTS: Participants were generally enthusiastic about enrollment in research, both to help future patients and as a way of giving back to the community. They described reliance on information from and trust in their cancer doctor regarding the decision to participate in research, but paradoxically there was discordance in how doctors and patients reported their respective influence in the decision-making process. Clinicians also stressed the importance in separating clinical and research-informed consent processes, although patients did not describe this tension. CONCLUSION: As we enter an era of increasing personalized medicine and targeted therapies, the relationship between clinicians, scientists, and patients plays a larger role in how we individualize and contextualize cancer research. Our data are another step toward the ultimate goal of respecting and protecting patients as participants in head and neck translational oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
head and neck cancer; precision oncology; research ethics; research informed consent
Authors: Jeffrey Abrams; Barbara Conley; Margaret Mooney; James Zwiebel; Alice Chen; John J Welch; Naoko Takebe; Shakun Malik; Lisa McShane; Edward Korn; Mickey Williams; Louis Staudt; James Doroshow Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2014
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Katherine Gillespie; Meghan Halley; Nina Varsava; Kelly E Ormond; Harold S Luft; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Aaron Sabolch; Rochelle Jones; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; David Grande; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louise Davies; Lorna A Rhodes; David C Grossman; Marie-Claire Rosenberg; David P Stevens Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Molly E Heft Neal; Andrew C Birkeland; Apurva D Bhangale; Jingyi Zhai; Aditi Kulkarni; Susan K Foltin; Brittany M Jewell; Megan L Ludwig; Lisa Pinatti; Hui Jiang; Jonathan B McHugh; Lawence Marentette; Erin L McKean; J Chad Brenner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Chris D Krenz; Collin Brummel; J Chad Brenner; Carol R Bradford; Andrew G Shuman Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Andrew G Shuman; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Madison Kent; Chris D Krenz; Collin Brummel; Paul L Swiecicki; J Chad Brenner Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2022-05-03
Authors: Lisa M Pinatti; Wenjin Gu; Yifan Wang; Ahmed Elhossiny; Apurva D Bhangale; Collin V Brummel; Thomas E Carey; Ryan E Mills; J Chad Brenner Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 6.860