Duality of purpose: Participant and parent understanding of the purpose of genomic tumor profiling research among children and young adults with solid tumors.

PURPOSE Increasing use of genomic tumor profiling may blur the line between research and clinical care. We aimed to describe research participants' perspectives on the purpose of genomic tumor profiling research in pediatric oncology. METHODS We surveyed 45 participants (response rate 85%) in a pilot study of genomic profiling in pediatric solid tumors at four academic cancer centers following return of sequencing results. We defined understanding according to a one-item ("basic") definition (recognizing that the primary purpose was not to improve the patient's treatment) and a four-item ("comprehensive") definition (primary purpose was not to improve patient's treatment; primary purpose was to improve treatment of future patients; there may not be direct medical benefit; most likely result of participation was not increased likelihood of cure). RESULTS Sixty-eight percent of respondents (30/44) demonstrated basic understanding of the study purpose; 55% (24/44) demonstrated comprehensive understanding. Understanding was more frequently seen in those with higher education and greater genetic knowledge according to basic (81% vs 50%, p=0.05; and 82% vs 46%, p=0.03, respectively) and comprehensive definitions (73% vs 28%, p=0.01; 71% vs 23%, p=0.01). Ninety-three percent of respondents who believed the primary purpose was to improve the patient's care simultaneously stated that the research also aimed to benefit future patients. CONCLUSIONS Most participants in pediatric tumor profiling research understand that the primary goal of this research is to improve care for future patients, but many express dual goals when participating in sequencing research. Some populations demonstrate increased rates of misunderstanding. Nuanced participant views suggest further work is needed to assess and improve participant understanding, particularly as tumor sequencing moves beyond research into clinical practice.

[1]  Jessica L. Davis,et al.  Larotrectinib for paediatric solid tumours harbouring NTRK gene fusions: phase 1 results from a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 study. , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[2]  Jonathan M Marron,et al.  Intended and unintended consequences: Ethics, communication, and prognostic disclosure in pediatric oncology , 2018, Cancer.

[3]  W. Chung,et al.  Whole-Genome and Whole-Exome Sequencing in Pediatric Oncology: An Assessment of Parent and Young Adult Patient Knowledge, Attitudes, and Expectations. , 2018, JCO precision oncology.

[4]  Funda Meric-Bernstam,et al.  Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion–Positive Cancers in Adults and Children , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  P. Varlet,et al.  Molecular Screening for Cancer Treatment Optimization (MOSCATO-01) in Pediatric Patients: A Single-Institutional Prospective Molecular Stratification Trial , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[6]  Donavan T. Cheng,et al.  Mutational Landscape of Metastatic Cancer Revealed from Prospective Clinical Sequencing of 10,000 Patients , 2017, Nature Medicine.

[7]  S. Roberts,et al.  A phase I/Ib trial targeting the Pi3k/Akt pathway using perifosine: Long‐term progression‐free survival of patients with resistant neuroblastoma , 2017, International journal of cancer.

[8]  J. Kimmelman Is Participation in Cancer Phase I Trials Really Therapeutic? , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Reaffirming and Clarifying the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Policy Statement on the Critical Role of Phase I Trials in Cancer Research and Treatment , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Jonathan M Marron,et al.  Patient/parent perspectives on genomic tumor profiling of pediatric solid tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) experience , 2016, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[11]  Tao Wang,et al.  Diagnostic Yield of Clinical Tumor and Germline Whole-Exome Sequencing for Children With Solid Tumors. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[12]  B. Crompton,et al.  Multicenter Feasibility Study of Tumor Molecular Profiling to Inform Therapeutic Decisions in Advanced Pediatric Solid Tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) Study. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[13]  J. Khan,et al.  MultiDimensional ClinOmics for Precision Therapy of Children and Adolescent Young Adults with Relapsed and Refractory Cancer: A Report from the Center for Cancer Research , 2016, Clinical Cancer Research.

[14]  L. Garraway,et al.  Oncologists' and Cancer Patients' Views on Whole-Exome Sequencing and Incidental Findings: Results from The CanSeq Study , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  G. Leverger,et al.  Vemurafenib Use in an Infant for High-Risk Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis. , 2015, JAMA oncology.

[16]  Nallasivam Palanisamy,et al.  Integrative Clinical Sequencing in the Management of Refractory or Relapsed Cancer in Youth. , 2015, JAMA.

[17]  W. Chung,et al.  Overcoming challenges to meaningful informed consent for whole genome sequencing in pediatric cancer research , 2015, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[18]  J. Mack,et al.  Parental Hope for Children With Advanced Cancer , 2015, Pediatrics.

[19]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: the critical role of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Mick P Couper,et al.  Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers , 2014, Genome Medicine.

[21]  F. Cappuzzo,et al.  First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Victoria A. Miller,et al.  Hope and persuasion by physicians during informed consent. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Kelvin K. W. Chan,et al.  Genomic testing in cancer: Patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations , 2014, Cancer.

[24]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Activating mTOR mutations in a patient with an extraordinary response on a phase I trial of everolimus and pazopanib. , 2014, Cancer discovery.

[25]  Fiona A Miller,et al.  Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[26]  K. Weinfurt,et al.  Research participants' high expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials: are we asking the right question? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  D. Drotar,et al.  Communicating and understanding the purpose of pediatric phase I cancer trials. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  Colleen Lewis,et al.  Therapeutic misconception, misestimation, and optimism in participants enrolled in phase 1 trials , 2012, Cancer.

[29]  P. Appelbaum,et al.  Therapeutic misconception in research subjects: Development and validation of a measure , 2012, Clinical trials.

[30]  M. Baccarani,et al.  Dasatinib or imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: 2-year follow-up from a randomized phase 3 trial (DASISION). , 2012, Blood.

[31]  E. Cook,et al.  Outcomes of informed consent among parents of children in cancer clinical trials , 2011, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[32]  B. Bernhardt,et al.  Motivations and Perceptions of Early Adopters of Personalized Genomics: Perspectives from Research Participants , 2011, Public Health Genomics.

[33]  Jeffrey W. Clark,et al.  Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  C. Grady,et al.  Clinical Trials and Medical Care: Defining the Therapeutic Misconception , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[35]  P. Appelbaum,et al.  Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors. , 2004, IRB.

[36]  Paul S Appelbaum,et al.  The Therapeutic Misconception: Problems and Solutions , 2002, Medical care.

[37]  Steven Joffe,et al.  Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey , 2001, The Lancet.

[38]  C. Sawyers,et al.  Activity of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in the blast crisis of chronic myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia with the Philadelphia chromosome. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  E F Cook,et al.  Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[40]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[41]  N. Magné,et al.  Treatment outcome and survival in participants of phase I oncology trials carried out from 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[42]  P. Appelbaum,et al.  The Therapeutic Misconception , 2008 .

[43]  Genetic counseling: an indispensable step in the genetic testing process. , 2008, Journal of Oncology Practice.

[44]  L. Furr,et al.  The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge. , 1999, Genetic testing.