Assessment of provider perspectives on otoprotection research for children and adolescents: A Children's Oncology Group Cancer Control and Supportive Care Committee survey. Issue 11 (4th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Orgel, Etan; Freyer, David R.; Ullrich, Nicole J.; Hardy, Kristina K.; Thomas, Stefanie M.; Dvorak, Christopher C.; Esbenshade, Adam J.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric blood & cancer. Volume 67:Issue 11(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-09-04
• Subjects: cisplatin -- hearing loss -- otoprotection -- ototoxicity -- sodium thiosulfate; Tumors in children -- Periodicals; Blood -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cancer in children -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28647
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-5009

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Cisplatin‐induced hearing loss (CIHL) is a common and debilitating toxicity for childhood cancer survivors. Understanding provider perspectives is crucial to developing otoprotection studies that are both informative and feasible. Two international trials (ACCL0431 and SIOPEL6) investigated the drug sodium thiosulfate (STS) as an otoprotectant, but definitive interpretation of the findings of these trials has been challenging. Adoption of STS has therefore been uneven, and provider perspectives on its role are unknown. Procedure: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) Cancer Control and Supportive Care Neurotoxicity Subcommittee therefore conducted a survey of providers at COG institutions to determine perspectives on pediatric otoprotection practices and research surrounding three major themes: (1) prevalence of routine use of STS with cisplatin‐based regimens, (2) application of audiometry to cisplatin therapy, and (3) preferred modalities for otoprotection research. Results: Survey respondents (45%, 44/98 surveyed institutions) were of diverse institutional sizes, practice settings, and geographical locations primarily in the United States and Canada. Overall, respondents considered CIHL an important toxicity and indicated strong enthusiasm for future studies (98%, 40/41). Results indicated that while STS was the current or planned standard of care in a minority of responding institutions (36%, 16/44), most sites were receptive to its inclusion in appropriate study designs. Application of audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring varied widely across sites. For otoprotection research, systemic agents were preferred (68%, 28/41) as compared with intratympanic approaches. Conclusion: These results suggest that pediatric otoprotection trials remain of interest to providers; the emphasis of these trials should remain on systemic and not intratympanic therapy.