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

BACKGROUND: Genomic testing in cancer (GTC) characterizes genes that play an important role in the development and growth of a patient's cancer. This form of DNA testing is currently being studied for its ability to guide cancer therapy. The objective of the current study was to describe patients' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations toward GTC. METHODS: A 42-item self-administered GTC questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary group and patient pretesting. The questionnaire was distributed to patients with advanced cancer who were referred to the Princess Margaret Cancer Center for a phase 1 clinical trial or GTC testing. RESULTS: Results were reported from 98 patients with advanced cancer, representing 66% of the patients surveyed. Seventy-six percent of patients were interested in learning more about GTC, and 64% reported that GTC would significantly improve their cancer care. The median score on a 12-item questionnaire to assess knowledge of cancer genomics was 8 of 12 items correct (67%; interquartile range, 7-9 of 12 items correct [58%-75%]). Scores were associated significantly with patients' education level (P < .0001). Sixty-six percent of patients would consent to a needle biopsy, and 39% would consent to an invasive surgical biopsy if required for GTC. Only 48% of patients reported having sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision to pursue GTC whereas 34% of patients indicated a need for formal genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer are motivated to participate in GTC. Patients require further education to understand the difference between somatic and germline mutations in the context of GTC. Educational programs are needed to support patients interested in pursuing GTC.

The contents and readability of informed consent forms for oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of informed consent forms (ICF) for different trial phases, funding sources, oncology subspecialties, disease settings, and intervention modalities. METHODS: ICF for prospectively conducted clinical trials were examined for their descriptions of benefits and risks, study alternatives, voluntary participation, and confidentiality. Readability was assessed with Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level. RESULTS: Among 262 evaluable trials, ICF contained an average of 3982 words, 379 sentences, and 10.5 pages. The mean FRE score and Reading Grade Level were 61.2 and 7.4, respectively. All ICF explicitly stated that the intervention was investigational. Only 2 (1%) promised direct personal benefits, 16 (6%) suggested the chance of cure or prolonged survival, and 89 (34%) indicated a potential for tumor response. Conversely, 239 (91%) mentioned the risk of serious harms, 217 (83%) admitted that some side effects could be unknown or unpredictable, and 126 (48%) reported hospitalization or death as a possibility. Alternatives to participation, right to withdraw from study, and data confidentiality were addressed in 242 (92%), 254 (97%), and 260 (99%) ICF, respectively. Hematology, industry-funded, metastatic, and systemic therapy trials were most likely to highlight major risks (P < 0.05). Readability was better in phase I trials and in studies, which were performed by medical oncologists, sponsored by governmental agencies, conducted in the metastatic setting, and involved systemic therapy (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ICF had acceptable readability and provided a realistic overview of the benefits and risks of clinical trials, but the potential for hospitalization or fatality was underreported.