Patient/parent perspectives on genomic tumor profiling of pediatric solid tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) experience. Issue 11 (18th July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Marron, Jonathan M.; DuBois, Steven G.; Bender, Julia Glade; Kim, AeRang; Crompton, Brian D.; Meyer, Stephanie C.; Janeway, Katherine A.; Mack, Jennifer W.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric blood & cancer. Volume 63:Issue 11(2016)
• Page Start: 1974
• Page End: 1982
• Publication Date: 2016-07-18
• Subjects: cancer -- genomics -- molecular profiling -- patient perspectives -- pediatric oncology -- personalized medicine; Tumors in children -- Periodicals; Blood -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cancer in children -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26137
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-5009

Abstract

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.