Establishing and Defining an Approach to Climate Conscious Clinical Medical Ethics.

An anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME.

Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective: To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results: Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

A Communication and Decision-Making Framework for Pediatric Precision Medicine.

Advances in genomic testing have been pivotal in moving childhood cancer care forward, with genomic testing now a standard diagnostic tool for many children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer. Beyond oncology, the role of genomic testing in pediatric research and clinical care is growing, including for children with developmental differences, cardiac abnormalities, and epilepsy. Despite more standard use in their patients, pediatricians have limited guidance on how to communicate this complex information or how to engage parents in decisions related to precision medicine. Drawing from empirical work in pediatric informed consent and existing models of shared decision-making, we use pediatric precision cancer medicine as a case study to propose a conceptual framework to approach communication and decision-making about genomic testing in pediatrics. The framework relies on identifying the type of genomic testing, its intended role, and its anticipated implications to inform the scope of information delivered and the parents' role in decision-making (leading to shared decision-making along a continuum from clinician-guided to parent-guided). This type of framework rests on practices known to be standard in other complex decision-making but also integrates unique features of genomic testing and precision medicine. With the increasing prominence of genomics and precision medicine in pediatrics, with our communication and decision-making framework, we aim to guide clinicians to better support their pediatric patients and their parents in making informed, goal-concordant decisions throughout their care trajectory.

Shifting from Equality toward Equity: Addressing Disparities in Research Participation for Clinical Cancer Research.

AbstractThere is societal consensus that cancer clinical trial participation is unjust because some sociodemographic groups have been systematically underrepresented. Despite this, neither a definition nor an ethical explication for the justice norm of equity has been clearly articulated in this setting, leading to confusion over its application and goals. Herein we define equity as acknowledging sociodemographic circumstances and apportioning resource and opportunity allocation to eliminate disparities in outcomes, and we explore the issues and tensions this norm generates through practical examples. We assess how equality-based enrollment structures in clinical cancer research have perpetuated historical disparities and what equity-based alternatives are necessary to achieve representativeness and an expansive conception of participatory justice in clinical cancer research. This framework addresses the breadth from normative to applied by defining the justice norm of equity and translating it into practical strategies for addressing participation disparities in clinical cancer research.

Hopes, concerns, satisfaction and regret in a precision medicine trial for childhood cancer: a mixed-methods study of parent and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric precision oncology aims to match therapeutic agents to driver gene targets. We investigated whether parents and patients regret participation in precision medicine trials, particularly when their hopes are unfulfilled. METHODS: Parents and adolescent patients completed questionnaires at trial enrolment (T0) and after receiving results (T1). Parents opted-in to an interview at T1. Bereaved parents completed a questionnaire 6-months post-bereavement (T1B). We analysed quantitative data with R and qualitative data thematically with NVivo, before integrating all data for interpretation. RESULTS: 182 parents and 23 patients completed T0; 108/182 parents and 8/23 patients completed T1; 27/98 bereaved parents completed T1B; and 45/108 parents were interviewed. At enrolment, participants held concurrent hopes that precision medicine would benefit future children and their child. Participants expressed concern regarding wait-times for receipt of results. Most participants found the trial beneficial and not burdensome, including bereaved parents. Participants reported high trial satisfaction (median scores: parents: 93/100; patients: 80/100). Participants expressed few regrets (parent median scores: parents: 10/100; bereaved parents: 15/100; patient regret: 2/8 expressed minimal regret). CONCLUSIONS: Even when trial outcomes did not match their hopes, parents and patients rarely regretted participating in a childhood cancer precision medicine trial. These data are critical for integrating participants' views into future precision medicine delivery.

Parents' and adolescents' perspectives and understanding of information about childhood cancer precision medicine.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine is projected to become integral to childhood cancer care. As such, it is essential to support families to understand what precision medicine entails. METHODS: A total of 182 parents and 23 adolescent patients participating in Precision Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM), an Australian precision medicine clinical trial for high-risk childhood cancer, completed questionnaires after study enrollment (time 0 [T0]). Of the parents, 108 completed a questionnaire and 45 completed an interview following return of precision medicine results (time 1 [T1]). We analyzed the mixed-methods data comprising measures exploring families' perceptions and understanding of PRISM's participant information sheet and consent form (PISCF), and factors associated with understanding. RESULTS: Most parents were satisfied with the PISCF, rating it as at least "somewhat" clearly presented (n = 160/175; 91%) and informative (n = 158/175; 90%). Many suggested improvements including the use of clearer language and a more visually engaging format. Parents' actual understanding of precision medicine was low on average, but scores improved between T0 and T1 (55.8/100-60.0/100; p = .012). Parents from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds (n = 42/177; 25%) had lower actual understanding scores than those from a Western/European background whose first language was English (p = .010). There was little correlation between parents' perceived and actual understanding scores (p = .794; Pearson correlation -0.020; 95% CI, -0.169 to 0.116). Most adolescent patients read the PISCF either "briefly" or "not at all" (70%) and had a perceived understanding score of 63.6/100 on average. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. We highlighted areas for potential intervention such as through targeted information resources. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Precision medicine is projected to become part of the standard of care for children with cancer. Precision medicine aims to give the right treatment to the right patient and involves several complex techniques, many of which may be challenging to understand. Our study analyzed questionnaire and interview data from parents and adolescent patients enrolled in an Australian precision medicine trial. Findings revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. Drawing on parents' suggestions and the literature, we make brief recommendations about improving information provision to families, such as through targeted information resources.

Fear of Saying No (FOSNO): Setting Boundaries With Our Patients and Ourselves.

Cancer is an inherently complex and intense medical condition that often requires prolonged treatment and surveillance over years. Treatments can lead to frequent side effects and anxiety, requiring constant communication and follow-up with patients. Oncologists have the unique privilege of developing close relationships with their patients that evolve through the course of their disease. The advent of newer technology and the changing landscape of medicine have drastically altered how oncologists now manage patient needs. These changes have allowed for much quicker and closer communication but are not without personal and professional challenges. Some may wonder how accessible they can and should be to their patients-essentially, the boundaries they may place to protect their own identities and well-being. An oncologist might wonder how much of their personal contact information they should provide to patients and how often they should be available for questions and discussions when away from the clinic without impairing their relationship. Here, we define and explore the role of boundaries in medicine, and review common ethical dilemmas that oncologists face daily when trying to balance patient care and lives outside of medicine. Although we recognize there is no clear single solution, we will propose possible approaches to setting boundaries and potential pitfalls.

The role of ethicists in pediatric hematology/oncology: Current status and future needs.

As pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) becomes more complex and sub-subspecialized, dedicated PHO ethicists have emerged as sub-subspecialists focused on addressing ethical issues encountered in clinical and research practices. PHO physicians and other clinicians with advanced training in bioethics contribute to the field through ethics research, education, and ethics consultation services. Furthermore, there exists a newer generation of PHO trainees interested in bioethics. This review details the experiences of current PHO ethicists, providing a blueprint for future educational, research and service activities to strengthen the trajectory of the burgeoning sub-subspecialty of PHO ethics. Creating an American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) ethics Special Interest Group, enhancing clinical ethics education for pediatric hematologists/oncologists (PHOs), developing multi-institutional research collaborations, and increasing attention to ethical issues germane to nonmalignant hematology will serve the interests of the entire field of PHO, enhancing the care of PHO patients and careers of PHOs.

Could Behavioral Economics Mitigate Shortcomings in Shared Decision-Making?

While shared decision-making (SDM) is generally considered to be the standard in current clinical practice, strict application of SDM can result in adverse outcomes in certain contexts. This article examines two illustrative cases-antibiotic over-prescription and decision-making at or near the end of life-to highlight how strictly applied SDM can result in suboptimal outcomes. The article continues to describe how strategies from libertarian paternalism, particularly default setting, framing, and nudging, can be valuable tools in supplementing strict applications of SDM, resulting in improved outcomes and patient care on both individual and societal levels.

What's in a Name? Parents' and Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Terminology for Pathogenic Variants in Childhood Cancer Predisposition Genes.

Current literature/guidelines regarding the most appropriate term to communicate a cancer-related disease-causing germline variant in childhood cancer lack consensus. Guidelines also rarely address preferences of patients/families. We aimed to assess preferences of parents of children with cancer, genetics professionals, and pediatric oncologists towards terminology to describe a disease-causing germline variant in childhood cancer. Using semi-structured interviews we asked participants their most/least preferred terms from; 'faulty gene,' 'altered gene,' 'gene change,' and 'genetic variant,' analyzing responses with directed content analysis. Twenty-five parents, 6 genetics professionals, and 29 oncologists participated. An equal number of parents most preferred 'gene change,' 'altered gene,' or 'genetic variant' (n = 8/25). Parents least preferred 'faulty gene' (n = 18/25). Half the genetics professionals most preferred 'faulty gene' (n = 3/6); however this was least preferred by the remaining genetics professionals (n = 3/6). Many oncologists most preferred 'genetic variant' (n = 11/29) and least preferred 'faulty gene' (n = 19/29). Participants across all groups perceived 'faulty gene' as having negative connotations, potentially placing blame/guilt on parents/children. Health professionals described challenges selecting a term that was scientifically accurate, easily understood and not distressing to families. Lack of consensus highlights the need to be guided by families' preferred terminology, while providing accurate explanations regarding implications of genetic findings.

Parents' understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review.

Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) are increasingly being used in pediatric contexts. We summarize evidence regarding the actual and perceived understanding of GS/ES of parents of a child offered testing for diagnosis and/or management of a symptomatic health condition. We searched four databases (2008-2021) and identified 1264 unique articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria. We synthesized data from qualitative and quantitative studies and organized results using Ayuso et al. (2013)'s framework of key elements of information for informed consent to GS/ES. Many of the parents represented had prior experience with genetic testing and accessed a form of genetic counseling. Parents' understanding was varied across the domains evaluated. Parents demonstrated understanding of the various potential direct clinical benefits to their child undergoing GS/ES, including in relation to other genetic tests. We found parents had mixed understanding of the nature of potential secondary findings, and of issues related to data privacy, confidentiality, and usage of sequencing results beyond their child's clinical care. Genetic counseling consultations improved understanding. Our synthesis indicates that ES/GS can be challenging for families to understand and underscores the importance of equipping healthcare professionals to explore parents' understanding of ES/GS and the implications of testing for their child.