[What are the genetic practices of SFCE oncopediatricians? A study of the CONECT-AML ethical group]. / Quelles sont les pratiques en génétique des pédiatres onco-hématologues de la SFCE ? Une enquête du groupe socle éthique CONECT-AML.

INTRODUCTION: Somatic genetic tests carried out by new high-throughput sequencing techniques (NGS) are now integrated into the care of children with cancer and leukemia. They can reveal constitutional abnormalities. We questioned the practices of pediatricians in carrying out genetic tests. METHODS: Survey was carried out among pediatric onco-hematologists and residents who have completed a pediatric hematology-oncology internship. RESULTS: Pediatricians mainly prescribe somatic genetic analyses. They are aware that they can reveal constitutional anomalies and inform the parents. Practices in terms of consent to genetics are heterogeneous. The regulatory aspects are poorly known. The child is still little considered in decisions, including when he reaches majority. Parents are informed of the existence of genetic information consultations mainly in the event of suspicion of a constitutional anomaly. Pediatricians, like residents, consider their knowledge of genetics insufficient. Despite this, they feel more comfortable communicating with families while residents say they are uncomfortable conducting a genetic interview. CONCLUSION: Extensive use of NGS for diagnosis confronts pediatricians with ethical questions about information, consent and the return of results. The support of the child must be taken more into account. Ways are mentioned for a better appropriation of the difficulties, while respecting the regulatory framework. The place of the pediatrician and that of the geneticist would aim to be clarified. Specific training, from the internship, would improve support for families and patients.

[Intellectual disability and cancer in children: An analysis of the decision-making process]. / Déficience intellectuelle et cancer chez l'enfant : analyse des pratiques concernant le choix du traitement.

AIM: The aim was to describe and to analyze the ethics of decision-making in situations involving children with intellectual disability and cancer, from the referent-doctor's point-of-view, in pediatric oncology units in France. METHODS: Pediatricians working in pediatric oncology units were interviewed through an online questionnaire and a semi-directive interview was systematically proposed. We analyzed the ethical issues that arose during the process of decision-making and we made suggestions in order to address them. RESULTS: Sixteen doctors reported twenty-one clinical cases. Of these cases, one third of the children had a change in their oncologic treatment, with a risk of pejorative outcome on the prognosis. Despite the fact that ethical issues appeared in 80 % of the cases, there were few consultations with ethical committees. Decision-making process showed no difference compared to children without intellectual disability, thus raising ethical issues in the medical team. Our study showed discrepancy between frequently reported ethical issues, high consensus rate regarding treatment decision and lack of consultation with ethical committees. DISCUSSION: We propose three steps to guide the decision-making process in situations involving children with intellectual disability and cancer: 1/deeper understanding of the child through reinforced interactions with their caregivers, 2/better cross-boundary discussions, to improve the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary staff, and 3/more systematic ethical committees consultation.

[Cancer in children with intellectual disabilities: Questioning and ethical issues]. / Cancer chez un enfant porteur de handicap intellectuel : questionnement et enjeux éthiques.

The Parents and Caregivers group in the face of ethics in pediatrics of the Île-de-France Ethics Area wondered about the association of the words Disability and Cancer by focusing on the study of the course of children with intellectual disability, treated for cancer. These situations are exceptional, the number of cases in France must not be more than fifty per year. We gathered the testimony of five families of children using a semi-directive survey taking up the journey from birth, announcement of the handicap, the diagnosis of cancer and its treatment. The verbatim show that each story is unique and rich in lessons, despite the feeling of "double penalty": "He did not deserve this, a handicap plus cancer is a lot for one person", "the shot moreover." A healthcare team was also interviewed and raised an additional question: "First, the double penalty… then, what's the point?" Through these testimonies, we sought to question the ethical principles of care, which can be shaken up in these extraordinary supported.

[French support organisations for young cancer patients and their families]. / Les acteurs associatifs français autour de l'enfant atteint de cancer ou de leucémie et de sa famille: panorama et questionnements.

This article describes the many French voluntary organisations that provide support for young cancer patients and their families, focusing on their geographic distribution, size, catchment area, recruitment, communication, and interactions. They are characterized by their diversity and adaptability, and by a widespread view that there are better ways of fighting these illnesses and of enhancing the quality of life of both the children concerned and their families. The potential benefits of partnerships between such organisations and healthcare professionals and institutions are underline.

Parents' and children's comprehension and decision in a paediatric early phase oncology trial: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse parents' and children's understanding of consent information and assess their decision-making process in paediatric oncology. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTINGS: Eleven French paediatric oncology units. PATIENTS: Parents and children who have been asked to give consent for participation in an early phase trial. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-seven children and 119 parents were questioned using an audio-recorded semistructured interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The participants' understanding of nine elements of the informed consent was assessed by comparing their answers with the informed consent leaflet. Their decision-making process was also evaluated. RESULTS: Most parents and children had an excellent understanding regarding their participation in a clinical trial (respectively 88.2% and 48.6%), the right to withdraw (76.5% and 43.2%) and the prospects of collective benefits (74.8% and 48.6%). By contrast, less than half of the parents and few of the children correctly understood the alternatives (respectively 47.5% and 27%), the risks related to participation (44.5% and 10.8%), the prospects of individual benefits (33.6% and 10.8%) and the purpose of the clinical trial (12.6% and 2.7%). Twenty-six (70.3%) children participated in the decision-making process. Most parents and children felt they had no choice but to participate in the trial to have access to a new anticancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: What might appear to be a poor understanding of the research protocol may actually correspond to the families' interpretation of the situation as a coping mechanism. All children (except infants) should get age-tailored information in order for them to have a meaningful involvement in research.

Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the parental understanding of informed consent information in first-line randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including children with malignant solid tumours and to assess parents' needs for decision-making. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SETTING: 3 paediatric oncology centres in the Parisian region in France. PARTICIPANTS: 53 parents were approached to participate in a RCT for their child with malignant solid tumour, over a 1-year period. 40 parents have been interviewed in our study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Parental understanding of information in RCTs, parents' needs for decision-making. Parents were questioned by a psychologist, independent of the paediatric oncology teams, using a semidirected interview, 1 (M1) and 6 months (M6) after the consent was sought. RESULTS: 18 parents (45%) did not understand the concept of randomisation. Half of the parents could explain neither the aim of the clinical trial nor the potential benefit to their child of inclusion. 35 parents (87.5%) expressed very few specific risks related to the trial. Being mostly French-speaking (p=0.03) and the reading of the information sheet by the parents (p=0.0025) improved their understanding. The parental comprehension did not differ between M1 and M6. The principal factors underlying their decision were confidence in the medical team (39%), wish to access to the best treatment (37%) and the best quality of life (37%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite medical explanations, parents have limited knowledge in some areas in first-line RCTs and improvements of information process are required. The risks specific to the randomised trial are underestimated by parents and the unproven nature of the treatment is not well-known or understood.