Understanding decisions to participate in genomic medicine in children's cancer care: A comparison of what influences parents, health care providers, and the general community.
childhood cancer
choice
decision-making
genomics
next-generation sequencing
preferences
Journal
Pediatric blood & cancer
ISSN: 1545-5017
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Blood Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101186624
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
revised:
28
03
2021
received:
27
01
2021
accepted:
21
04
2021
pubmed:
6
6
2021
medline:
12
3
2022
entrez:
5
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The emerging role of genomically guided precision medicine in pediatric cancer care presents significant clinical, practical, and ethical challenges. We investigated the factors that influence decision-making in genomic medicine from the perspective of different stakeholders in the context of difficult-to-treat childhood cancer. Health care providers (HCPs), parents of childhood cancer survivors, and general community members completed an online discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents considered whether to recommend (HCPs) or choose (parents/community) a genomically guided approach to pediatric cancer treatment. Respondents completed eight choice questions varying by survival benefit, prognosis, likelihood of finding a target, quality of life (QoL), HCP/parent preference, need for biopsy, cost, and who pays. Data were analyzed using a probability regression model, with findings expressed as relative importance, stated importance, and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP). One hundred twenty-six HCPs, 130 parents, and 531 community members participated. The probability of recommending/choosing genomically guided treatment increased significantly with better prognosis, survival benefit, improvements in QoL, and decision-making partner support. It decreased with increasing costs and if parents paid for treatment. HCPs were more responsive to all factors but were most influenced by survival outcomes, and parents and community members by QoL. In contrast to these forced choice preference results, HCPs stated they were most influenced by QoL and community members by survival. Our findings support the primacy of QoL in genomic decision-making, with some differences across stakeholders in the other factors influencing decision-making. These findings emphasize the need for high-quality information giving and communication to support genomic medicine choices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The emerging role of genomically guided precision medicine in pediatric cancer care presents significant clinical, practical, and ethical challenges. We investigated the factors that influence decision-making in genomic medicine from the perspective of different stakeholders in the context of difficult-to-treat childhood cancer.
METHODS
Health care providers (HCPs), parents of childhood cancer survivors, and general community members completed an online discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents considered whether to recommend (HCPs) or choose (parents/community) a genomically guided approach to pediatric cancer treatment. Respondents completed eight choice questions varying by survival benefit, prognosis, likelihood of finding a target, quality of life (QoL), HCP/parent preference, need for biopsy, cost, and who pays. Data were analyzed using a probability regression model, with findings expressed as relative importance, stated importance, and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP).
RESULTS
One hundred twenty-six HCPs, 130 parents, and 531 community members participated. The probability of recommending/choosing genomically guided treatment increased significantly with better prognosis, survival benefit, improvements in QoL, and decision-making partner support. It decreased with increasing costs and if parents paid for treatment. HCPs were more responsive to all factors but were most influenced by survival outcomes, and parents and community members by QoL. In contrast to these forced choice preference results, HCPs stated they were most influenced by QoL and community members by survival.
CONCLUSION
Our findings support the primacy of QoL in genomic decision-making, with some differences across stakeholders in the other factors influencing decision-making. These findings emphasize the need for high-quality information giving and communication to support genomic medicine choices.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e29101Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Steliarova-Foucher E, Colombet M, Ries LAG, et al. International incidence of childhood cancer, 2001-10: a population-based registry study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):719-731.
National Cancer Control Indicators. Five-Year Observed Survival by Stage at Diagnosis for Childhood Cancers (First Release). August 31, 2018.
Mody RJ, Prensner JR, Everett J, Parsons DW, Chinnaiyan AM. Precision medicine in pediatric oncology: lessons learned and next steps. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;64:e26288.
Winkler EC, Wiemann S. Findings made in gene panel to whole genome sequencing: data, knowledge, ethics - and consequences? Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2016;16(12):1259-1270.
Clarke AJ. Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine. Br Med Bull. 2014;111:17-30.
Oberg JA, Ruiz J, Ali-Shaw T, et al. Whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in pediatric oncology: an assessment of parent and young adult patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:1-11.
Scollon S, Bergstrom K, Kerstein RA, et al. Obtaining informed consent for clinical tumor and germline exome sequencing of newly diagnosed childhood cancer patients. Genome Med. 2014;6(69):1-11.
Devon KM, Lerner-Ellis JP, Ganai S, Angelos P. Ethics and genomic medicine, how to navigate decisons in surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:18-23.
Bester J, Cole CM, Kodish E. The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians' role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(9):869-886.
McCullough LB, Slashinski MJ, McGuire AL, et al. Is whole-exome sequencing an ethically disruptive technology? Perspectives of pediatric oncologists and parents of pediatric patients with solid tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(3):511-515.
Oberg JA, Glade Bender JL, Cohn EG, et al. Overcoming challenges to meaningful informed consent for whole genome sequencing in pediatric cancer research. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(8):1374-1380.
Marron JM, DuBois SG, Glade Bender J, et al. Patient/parent perspectives on genomic tumor profiling of pediatric solid tumors: the Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(11):1974-1982.
Cohen B, Roth M, Marron JM, et al. Pediatric oncology provider views on biopsying solid tumors in children with relapsed or refractory disease for the purpose of genomic profiling. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23Suppl (5):990-997.
McGill BC, Wakefield CE, Hetherington K, et al. “Balancing expectations with actual realities”: conversations with clinicians and scientists in the first year of a high-risk childhood cancer precision medicine trial. J Pers Med. 2020;10(1):9.
Malek J, Slashinski MJ, Robinson JO, et al. Parental perspectives on whole-exome sequencing in pediatric cancer: a typology of perceived utility. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;1:PO.17.00010.
Markward MJ, Benner K, Freese R. Perspectives of parents on making decisions about the care and treatment of a child with cancer: a review of literature. Fam Syst Health. 2013;18:145-156.
Heinze KE, Nolan MT. Parental decision making for children with cancer at the end of life: a meta-ethnography. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2012;29(6):337-345.
Tomlinson D, Bartels U, Hendershot E, Maloney A, Ethier M, Sung L. Factors affecting treatment choices in pediatric palliative care: comparing parents and health professionals. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2182-2187.
Mack JW, Cook EF, Wolfe J, Grier HE, Cleary PD, Weeks JC. Understanding of prognosis among parents of children with cancer: parental optimism and parent-physician interaction. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1357-1362.
Rosenberg AR, Orellana L, Kang TI, et al. Differences in parent-provider concordance regarding prognosis and goals of care among children with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3005-3011.
Mack JW, Joffe S, Hilden JM, et al. Parents' views of cancer-directed therapy for children with no realistic chance for cure. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(29):4759-4764.
Tomlinson D, Bartels U, Gammon J, et al. Chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in pediatric palliative care for cancer: comparing the preferences of parents and health care professionals. CMAJ. 2011;183(17):E1252-E1258.
Henrich N, Marra CA, Gastonguay L, et al. De-escalation of therapy for pediatric medulloblastoma: trade-offs between quality of life and survival. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014;61(7):1300-1304.
Goranitis I, Best S, Christodoulou J, Stark Z, Boughtwood T. The personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing in pediatric and adult conditions: eliciting societal preferences with three discrete choice experiments. Genet Med. 2020;22(8):1311-1319.
Lewis MA, Stine A, Paquin RS, et al. Parental preferences toward genomic sequencing for non-medically actionable conditions in children: a discrete-choice experiment. Genet Med. 2018;20(2):181-189.
Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S, Reed SD, Schulman KA. Patient preferences for features of health care delivery systems: a discrete choice experiment. Health Serv Res. 2016;51(2):704-727.
McCarthy MC, De Abreu Lourenco R, McMillan LJ, Meshcheriakova E, Cao A, Gillam L. Finding out what matters in decision-making related to genomics and personalized medicine in pediatric oncology: developing attributes to include in a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 2020;13(3):347-361.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.; 2109.
Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. M. Ryan, K. Gerard and M. Amaya-Amaya. The Netherlands: Springer; 2008:13-46
Malhotra N, Birks D. Marketing Research: an Applied Approach. Multidimensional Scaling and Conjoint Analysis. 3rd European ed.Edinburgh, England: Pearson Education; 2007.
Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Ozdemir S, Marshall DA, Phillips KA. How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20(3):323-330.
Bartholdson C, Lützén K, Blomgren K, Pergert P. Experiences of ethical issues when caring for children with cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(2):125-132.
Hinds PS, Drew D, Oakes LL, et al. End-of-life care preferences of pediatric patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9146-9154.
Valdez-Martinez E, Noyes J, Bedolla M. When to stop? Decision-making when children's cancer treatment is no longer curative: a mixed-method systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14(1):124.
Kamihara J, Nyborn JA, Olcese ME, Nickerson T, Mack JW. Parental hope for children with advanced cancer. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):868-874.
Mack JW, Wolfe J, Cook EF, Grier HE, Cleary PD, Weeks JC. Hope and prognostic disclosure. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(35):5636-5642.
Mack JW, Joffe S, Hilden JM, et al. Parents’ views of cancer-directed therapy for children with no realistic chance for cure. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(29):4759-4764.
Hinds PS, Oakes LL, Hicks J, et al. “Trying to be a good parent” as defined by interviews with parents who made phase I, terminal care, and resuscitation decisions for their children. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(35):5979.
Gavan SP, Lu CY, Payne K. Assessing the joint value of genomic-based diagnostic tests and gene therapies. J Pers Med. 2019;9(2):28.
Regier DA, Veenstra DL, Basu A, Carlson JJ. Demand for precision medicine: a discrete-choice experiment and external validation study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(1):57-68.