Literature DB >> 32913997

Whole-Genome and Whole-Exome Sequencing in Pediatric Oncology: An Assessment of Parent and Young Adult Patient Knowledge, Attitudes, and Expectations.

Jennifer A Oberg1, Jenny Ruiz1, Trisha Ali-Shaw1, Kathryn A Schlechtweg1, Angela Ricci1, Andrew L Kung1, Wendy K Chung1, Paul S Appelbaum1, Julia L Glade Bender1, Jennifer M Levine1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The complexity of results generated from whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) adds challenges to obtaining informed consent in pediatric oncology. Little is known about knowledge of WGS and WES in this population, and no validated tools exist in pediatric oncology.
METHODS: We developed and psychometrically evaluated a novel WGS and WES knowledge questionnaire, the Precision in Pediatric Sequencing Knowledge Questionnaire (PIPseqKQ), to identify levels of understanding among parents and young adult cancer survivors (≥ 18 years old), off therapy for at least 1 year from a single-institution pediatric oncology outpatient clinic. Participants also completed health literacy and numeracy questionnaires. All participants provided written informed consent.
RESULTS: One hundred eleven participants were enrolled: 76 were parents, and 35 were young adults. Of the total cohort, 77 (69%) were female, 63 (57%) self-identified as white, and 74 (67%) self-identified as non-Hispanic. Sixty-six (59%) had less than a college degree. Adequate health literacy (n = 87; 80%) and numeracy (n = 89; 80%) were demonstrated. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = .88), and test-retest reliability was greater than the 0.7 minimum requirement. Scores were highest for genetic concepts related to health and cancer and lowest for WGS and WES concepts. Health literacy and educational attainment were significantly associated with PIPseqKQ scores. Overall, participants felt the benefits of WGS and WES outweighed the potential risks.
CONCLUSION: Parents and young adult cancer survivors have some genetics knowledge, but they lack knowledge about WGS and WES. The PIPseqKQ is a reliable tool that can identify deficits in knowledge, identify perceptions of risks and benefits of WGS and WES, and help clinicians tailor their consent discussions to best fit families. The PIPseqKQ also may inform the development of educational tools to better facilitate the informed consent process in pediatric oncology.
© 2018 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 32913997      PMCID: PMC7446494          DOI: 10.1200/PO.17.00104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol        ISSN: 2473-4284


  38 in total

1.  The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge.

Authors:  L A Furr; S E Kelly
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  1999

2.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

3.  Next-generation personalised medicine for high-risk paediatric cancer patients - The INFORM pilot study.

Authors:  Barbara C Worst; Cornelis M van Tilburg; Gnana Prakash Balasubramanian; Petra Fiesel; Ruth Witt; Angelika Freitag; Miream Boudalil; Christopher Previti; Stephan Wolf; Sabine Schmidt; Sasithorn Chotewutmontri; Melanie Bewerunge-Hudler; Matthias Schick; Matthias Schlesner; Barbara Hutter; Lenka Taylor; Tobias Borst; Christian Sutter; Claus R Bartram; Till Milde; Elke Pfaff; Andreas E Kulozik; Arend von Stackelberg; Roland Meisel; Arndt Borkhardt; Dirk Reinhardt; Jan-Henning Klusmann; Gudrun Fleischhack; Stephan Tippelt; Uta Dirksen; Heribert Jürgens; Christof M Kramm; Andre O von Bueren; Frank Westermann; Matthias Fischer; Birgit Burkhardt; Wilhelm Wößmann; Michaela Nathrath; Stefan S Bielack; Michael C Frühwald; Simone Fulda; Thomas Klingebiel; Ewa Koscielniak; Matthias Schwab; Roman Tremmel; Pablo Hernáiz Driever; Johannes H Schulte; Benedikt Brors; Andreas von Deimling; Peter Lichter; Angelika Eggert; David Capper; Stefan M Pfister; David T W Jones; Olaf Witt
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study.

Authors:  Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-06-07

5.  Genomic testing in cancer: patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations.

Authors:  Phillip S Blanchette; Anna Spreafico; Fiona A Miller; Kelvin Chan; Jessica Bytautas; Steve Kang; Philippe L Bedard; Andrea Eisen; Larissa Potanina; Jack Holland; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; John D McPherson; Albiruni R Razak; Lillian L Siu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Danielle R M Timmermans; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2004

7.  Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Jessica P Bytautas; Philippe L Bedard; Scott Ernst; Hal Hirte; Sebastien Hotte; Amit Oza; Albiruni Razak; Stephen Welch; Eric Winquist; Janet Dancey; Lillian L Siu
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Development and Validation of a Genomic Knowledge Scale to Advance Informed Decision Making Research in Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Michelle M Langer; Myra I Roche; Noel T Brewer; Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Khan; Cristina Leos; Elizabeth Moore; Michelle Brown; Christine Rini
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2017-02-01

9.  Multicenter Feasibility Study of Tumor Molecular Profiling to Inform Therapeutic Decisions in Advanced Pediatric Solid Tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) Study.

Authors:  Marian H Harris; Steven G DuBois; Julia L Glade Bender; AeRang Kim; Brian D Crompton; Erin Parker; Ian P Dumont; Andrew L Hong; Dongjing Guo; Alanna Church; Kimberly Stegmaier; Charles W M Roberts; Suzanne Shusterman; Wendy B London; Laura E MacConaill; Neal I Lindeman; Lisa Diller; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Katherine A Janeway
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  Integrative Clinical Sequencing in the Management of Refractory or Relapsed Cancer in Youth.

Authors:  Rajen J Mody; Yi-Mi Wu; Robert J Lonigro; Xuhong Cao; Sameek Roychowdhury; Pankaj Vats; Kevin M Frank; John R Prensner; Irfan Asangani; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Jonathan R Dillman; Raja M Rabah; Laxmi Priya Kunju; Jessica Everett; Victoria M Raymond; Yu Ning; Fengyun Su; Rui Wang; Elena M Stoffel; Jeffrey W Innis; J Scott Roberts; Patricia L Robertson; Gregory Yanik; Aghiad Chamdin; James A Connelly; Sung Choi; Andrew C Harris; Carrie Kitko; Rama Jasty Rao; John E Levine; Valerie P Castle; Raymond J Hutchinson; Moshe Talpaz; Dan R Robinson; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  1 in total

1.  Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne®CDx, a comprehensive genomic profiling assay for solid tumors.

Authors:  Coren A Milbury; James Creeden; Wai-Ki Yip; David L Smith; Varun Pattani; Kristi Maxwell; Bethany Sawchyn; Ole Gjoerup; Wei Meng; Joel Skoletsky; Alvin D Concepcion; Yanhua Tang; Xiaobo Bai; Ninad Dewal; Pei Ma; Shannon T Bailey; James Thornton; Dean C Pavlick; Garrett M Frampton; Daniel Lieber; Jared White; Christine Burns; Christine Vietz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.