Speaking genomics to parents offered germline testing for cancer predisposition: Use of a 2-visit consent model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are increasingly offered genomic sequencing, including germline testing for cancer predisposition or other disorders. Such testing is unfamiliar to patients and families, and clear communication is needed to introduce genomic concepts and convey risk and benefit information. METHODS: Parents of children with cancer were offered the opportunity to have their children's tumor and germline examined with clinical genomic sequencing. Families were introduced to the study with a 2-visit informed consent model. Baseline genetic knowledge and self-reported literacy/numeracy were collected before a study introduction visit, during which basic concepts related to genomic sequencing were discussed. Information was reinforced during a second visit, during which informed consent was obtained and a posttest was administered. RESULTS: As reflected by the percentage of correct answers on the pretest and posttest assessments, this model increased genetic knowledge by 11.1% (from 77.8% to 88.9%; P < .0001) in 121 parents participating in both the study introduction and consent visits. The percentage of parents correctly identifying the meaning of somatic and germline mutations increased significantly (from 18% to 59% [somatic] and from 31% to 64% [germline]; P < .0001). Nevertheless, these concepts remained unfamiliar to one-third of the parents. No relation was identified between the change in the overall percentage of correct answers and self-reported literacy, numeracy, or demographics. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 2-visit communication model improved knowledge of concepts relevant to genomic sequencing, particularly differences between somatic and germline testing; however, these areas remained confusing to many participants, and reinforcement may be necessary to achieve complete understanding.

Integrating next-generation sequencing into pediatric oncology practice: An assessment of physician confidence and understanding of clinical genomics.

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology. METHODS: Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing. RESULTS: Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results. CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology-based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer-based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype-phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352-2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Adolescents' preferences for treatment decisional involvement during their cancer.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study investigated the medical decision-making preferences of adolescent oncology patients and the parental and clinician behaviors that adolescents report to be supportive of their preferred level of decision-making involvement. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 40 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 years who were undergoing cancer treatment in Memphis, Tenn or Washington, DC. Role preferences were converted into a predetermined Likert scale decisional preference score. A semantic content analysis was used to analyze patient reports of parental behaviors, attitudes, knowledge levels, and relational interactions that facilitated their preferred level of involvement in decision making. Clinician behaviors described as supportive of decisional processes were also categorized thematically. A teen advisory council validated study findings. Data reporting followed strict adherence to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. RESULTS: Adolescents indicated a spectrum of preferred decisional roles, with the most common being an actively involved role (26 of 40 or 65%), although a shared decision-making approach was still valued. There was no statistically significant difference in the preferred decisional role with respect to demographic or medical characteristics, including the relapse status, although adolescents who preferred autonomous interview settings were more likely to prefer active decisional roles (P < .001). Adolescents recognized that situational and social contexts might shift their preferred level of involvement in medical decisions. Although adolescents wanted to be involved in decisions, they also expressed an appreciation of family insight, parental presence, and clinician guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with cancer are able to retrospectively identify their preferences for inclusion in medical decision making, and even when preferring involvement, they value the input of trusted others.

Patient-controlled analgesia at the end of life at a pediatric oncology institution.

BACKGROUND: Patient controlled anesthesia (PCA) is increasingly used to manage pain in pediatric cancer patients and is important in the treatment of escalating pain at the end of life. The description of the use of opioid PCA in this population has been limited. PROCEDURE: This retrospective chart review of the last 2 weeks of life addressed the following objectives: (1) to describe the patient population treated with opioid PCA; (2) to describe the morphine-equivalent doses (MED) (mg/kg/day); and (3) to describe the pain scores (PS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of inpatients used opioid PCA for pain control during the last 2 weeks of life. The mean MED (mg/kg/day) (SD) at 2 weeks prior and the day of death were 10.7 (17.9) and 19 (25.8). The mean MED increased over the last 2 weeks of life for all patients and across age groups and cancer diagnoses (all P < 0.05). The mean MED was significantly higher in the younger age group (age <13 vs. age ≥ 13) on the day of death (P < 0.04). There was a significant change in mean PS over the last 2 weeks of life (P < 0.001), with the highest PS on the day before death. The most frequently used concurrent medications were benzodiazepines (91%). CONCLUSIONS: Children and young adults with cancer experience high opioid requirements and significant dose increases during the last 2 weeks of life. Additionally, PS increase toward the end of life. Opioid rotation and addition of adjuvant medications merit consideration in the context of escalating opioid requirements.