Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. RESULTS: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. PROSPERO: CRD42023444890.

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.

When genetics and pediatric cancer collide: Understanding and optimizing families' experiences.

Background: Advances in our understanding of the genetic basis of childhood cancer, including primary central nervous system cancers, are improving the diagnosis, treatment, and clinical management of pediatric patients. To effectively translate scientific breakthroughs into enhanced clinical care, it is essential we understand and learn from the experiences of patients, families, and health professionals. Methods: This report summarizes findings from 4 Australian psychosocial substudies exploring the perspectives of patients, parents, clinicians, and scientists participating in research related to childhood cancer genetics. Specifically, these studies focus on the psychosocial impact of germline testing in children, surveillance for children with a cancer predisposition syndrome and the perspectives of healthcare professionals who deliver this testing and surveillance. Results: Data presented highlight some of the opportunities and challenges associated with the changing context of genetic predisposition testing for children, adolescents and yound adults with cancer and illustrate how embedding psychosocial data collection in clinical research can answer important questions in the field and inform the design of patient-centric models of care, resources, and workforce training. Conclusions: By embracing these perspectives, we can ensure that advances in genetic research translate into enhanced family experiences, and, ultimately, improved outcomes for children and young people with cancer, and their families.

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.