Initial Steps in Creating a Patient-Centric Addendum to Clinical Trial Informed Consent Forms.

Introduction: The purpose of the informed consent form (ICF) is to outline the risks and benefits of an interventional clinical trial to potential participants. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a short addendum to the ICF, summarizing key points most relevant to potential participants. Methods: A sample of 20 ICFs was reviewed against the requirements of the U.S. federal regulation documents and assessed for readability. Alongside the ICF review, we conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with people with lung cancer (n = 9) to learn what information was most important when considering participation in a clinical trial using a hypothetical phase 3 ICF. Results: The 20 ICFs reviewed were from phases 1 to 3, expanded-access, and single-patient trials covering predominantly NSCLC; 60% were global. The mean length of the ICFs was 21 (range: 15-34) pages. The average reading level was tenth grade whereas the average U.S. reading level was eighth grade. Readability varied by section, the "purpose of the study" section had the highest reading level. In the qualitative research component, participants were "overwhelmed" by the hypothetical ICF. Participants were also asked to list information for the addendum; their suggestions broadly map to federal regulations. An addendum with reference to sections in the ICF for additional details was well received. Conclusions: The variations in ICF architecture and readability make it difficult for patients to make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial. Implications extend beyond lung cancer, highlighting key areas for ICF improvements and providing a roadmap for developing a patient-centric addendum.

Patient Report on the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Living With Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Several studies have highlighted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related disruptions in treatment and care in people living with lung cancer. However, few studies have assessed patient-reported perspectives on treatment disruption. This study aims to report the patient perspectives on the impact of COVID-19, vaccination access, and coverage on people living with lung cancer. Methods: Data are from a larger online longitudinal study being run by a lung cancer nonprofit organization, LUNGevity Foundation. The survey is open to all patients living with lung cancer and their caregivers. These analyses focus on data captured in the COVID-19 module and the vaccine questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were computed for categorical and ordinal variables. Results: Overall, 164 people living with lung cancer completed the COVID-19 module. Of these, 54% reported disruption in access to treatment, appointments, participating in research and clinical trials. Participants living with stage IV disease were likely to be more concerned about COVID-19 (35%) compared with those with stage I, II, and III. More than half (66%) had tested for COVID-19 of this group 88% tested negative. There was a correlation among participants testing positive for COVID-19 and the number of household members who also tested positive for COVID-19. In the sample who completed the vaccine survey, almost all (98%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. When a recommendation came from a health care professional, an oncologist was the most likely referral source (33%). Conclusions: An integrative patient-reported view on the impact of COVID-19 is important for adequate preparation to ensure undisrupted treatment and allocation of resources.

Question prompt lists and caregiver question asking in pediatric specialty appointments: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions. METHODS: Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked. RESULTS: Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (MeanPVP = 4.36, SDPVP = 4.66 vs. Meancontrol = 2.83, SDcontrol = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (MeanPVP = 1.05, SDPVP = 1.39 vs. Meancontrol = 0.36, SDcontrol = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166). CONCLUSION: The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.

The Burden of COVID-19 on Caregivers of Children with Suspected Genetic Conditions: A Therapeutic Odyssey.

AIMS: Children with disabilities and rare or undiagnosed conditions and their families have faced numerous hardships of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. For those with undiagnosed conditions, the diagnostic odyssey can be long, expensive, and marked by uncertainty. We, therefore, sought to understand whether and how COVID-19 impacted the trajectory of children's care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 caregivers who, prior to the pandemic, were on a diagnostic odyssey for their children. RESULTS: Most caregivers did not report any interruptions to their child's diagnostic odyssey. The greatest impact was access to therapy services, including the suspension or loss of their child's in-person therapeutic care and difficulties with virtual therapies. This therapy gap caused caregivers to fear that their children were not making progress. CONCLUSION: Although much has been written about the challenges of diagnostic odysseys for children and their families, this study illustrates the importance of expanding the focus of these studies to include therapeutic odysseys. Because therapeutic odysseys continue regardless of whether diagnoses are made, future research should investigate how to support caregivers through children's therapies within and outside of the COVID-19 context.

Evaluating the clinical utility of early exome sequencing in diverse pediatric outpatient populations in the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation of Next-generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) 2 study: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exome sequencing (ES) has probable utility for shortening the diagnostic odyssey of children with suspected genetic disorders. This report describes the design and methods of a study evaluating the potential of ES as a routine clinical tool for pediatric patients who have suspected genetic conditions and who are in the early stages of the diagnostic odyssey. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) 2 study is an interdisciplinary, multi-site Phase III randomized controlled trial of two interventions: educational pre-visit preparation (PVP) and offer of first-line ES. In this full-factorial design, parent-child dyads are randomly assigned to one of four study arms (PVP + usual care, ES + usual care, PVP + ES + usual care, or usual care alone) in equal proportions. Participants are recruited from Pediatric Genetics or Neurology outpatient clinics in three North Carolina healthcare facilities. Eligible pediatric participants are < 16 years old and have a first visit to a participating clinic, a suspected genetic condition, and an eligible parent/guardian to attend the clinic visit and complete study measures. The study oversamples participants from underserved and under-represented populations. Participants assigned to the PVP arms receive an educational booklet and question prompt list before clinical interactions. Randomization to offer of first-line ES is revealed after a child's clinic visit. Parents complete measures at baseline, pre-clinic, post-clinic, and two follow-up timepoints. Study clinicians provide phenotypic data and complete measures after the clinic visit and after returning results. Reportable study-related research ES results are confirmed in a CLIA-certified clinical laboratory. Results are disclosed to the parent by the clinical team. A community consultation team contributed to the development of study materials and study implementation methods and remains engaged in the project. DISCUSSION: NCGENES 2 will contribute valuable knowledge concerning technical, clinical, psychosocial, and health economic issues associated with using early diagnostic ES to shorten the diagnostic odyssey of pediatric patients with likely genetic conditions. Results will inform efforts to engage diverse populations in genomic medicine research and generate evidence that can inform policy, practice, and future research related to the utility of first-line diagnostic ES in health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03548779 . Registered on June 07, 2018.

Engaging community stakeholders in research on best practices for clinical genomic sequencing.

Aim: Maximizing the utility and equity of genomic sequencing integration in clinical care requires engaging patients, their families, and communities. The NCGENES 2 study explores the impact of engagement between clinicians and caregivers of children with undiagnosed conditions in the context of a diagnostic genomic sequencing study. Methods: A Community Consult Team (CCT) of diverse parents and advocates for children with genetic and/or neurodevelopmental conditions was formed. Results: Early and consistent engagement with the CCT resulted in adaptations to study protocol and materials relevant to this unique study population. Discussion: This study demonstrates valuable contributions of community stakeholders to inform the implementation of translational genomics research for diverse participants.

CpG island tumor suppressor promoter methylation in non-BRCA-associated early mammary carcinogenesis.

BACKGROUND: Only 5% of all breast cancers are the result of BRCA1/2 mutations. Methylation silencing of tumor suppressor genes is well described in sporadic breast cancer; however, its role in familial breast cancer is not known. METHODS: CpG island promoter methylation was tested in the initial random periareolar fine-needle aspiration sample from 109 asymptomatic women at high risk for breast cancer. Promoter methylation targets included RARB (M3 and M4), ESR1, INK4a/ARF, BRCA1, PRA, PRB, RASSF1A, HIN-1, and CRBP1. RESULTS: Although the overall frequency of CpG island promoter methylation events increased with age (P<0.0001), no specific methylation event was associated with age. In contrast, CpG island methylation of RARB M4 (P=0.051), INK4a/ARF (P=0.042), HIN-1 (P=0.044), and PRA (P=0.032), as well as the overall frequency of methylation events (P=0.004), was associated with abnormal Masood cytology. The association between promoter methylation and familial breast cancer was tested in 40 unaffected premenopausal women in our cohort who underwent BRCA1/2 mutation testing. Women with BRCA1/2 mutations had a low frequency of CpG island promoter methylation (15 of 15 women had