Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches for Discussing Clinical Trials with Pediatric Oncology Patients and Their Families

  • Palliative Medicine (A Jatoi, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

  • 1 Altmetric

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This manuscript aims to describe evidence-based best practices to guide clinicians in communicating with pediatric patients and their families about clinical trial enrollment.

Recent Findings

The standard paradigm for discussing clinical trial enrollment with pediatric oncology patients and their families inconsistently enables or facilitates true informed consent. Evidence exists to suggest that adopting a shared decision-making approach may improve patient and family understanding. When navigating communication about clinical trials, clinicians should integrate the following evidence-based communication approaches: (1) extend dialogue about clinical trial enrollment across multiple conversations, allowing families space and time to process information independently; (2) use core communication skills such as avoiding jargon, checking for understanding, and responding to emotion. Clinicians should consider factors at the individual, team, organizational, community, and policy levels that may impact clinical trial communication with pediatric cancer patients and their families.

Summary

This article reviews learnable skills that clinicians can master to optimize communication about clinical trial enrollment with pediatric cancer patients and their families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Institutes of Health. Definition of a clinical trial. August 8, 2017 [November 12, 2021]; Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2021.

  3. Cousino MK, et al. Communicating and understanding the purpose of pediatric phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):4367–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Leary M, et al. Progress in childhood cancer: 50 years of research collaboration, a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Semin Oncol. 2008;35(5):484–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hazen RA, et al. Communication about the risks and benefits of phase I pediatric oncology trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;41:139–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Deatrick JA, Angst DB, Moore C. Parents’ views of their children’s participation in phase I oncology clinical trials. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2002;19(4):114–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kost RG, et al. Assessing participant-centered outcomes to improve clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(23):2179–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson LM, et al. Practical communication guidance to improve phase 1 informed consent conversations and decision-making in pediatric oncology. Cancer. 2015;121(14):2439–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Joffe S, et al. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358(9295):1772–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wendler DS. Assent in paediatric research: theoretical and practical considerations. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(4):229–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Barfield RC, Church C. Informed consent in pediatric clinical trials. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2005;17(1):20–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Béranger A, et al. Parents’ and children’s comprehension and decision in a paediatric early phase oncology trial: a prospective study. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(10):947–52. This study describes the inadequacy of the current paradigm for discussing phase 1 clinical trials in terms of patient and family understanding and is helpful for understanding the problem addressed in the submitted manuscript.

  13. Chappuy H, et al. Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. •• Sisk BA, et al. Multilevel barriers and facilitators of communication in pediatric oncology:aA systematic review. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;127(12):2130–8. This meta-analysis synthesizes the known literature on facilitators of and barriers to effective communication in pediatric oncology, with particular attention paid to important factors at various levels of the healthcare system.

  15. Yamokoski AD, Hazen RA, Kodish ED. Anticipatory guidance to improve informed consent: a new application of the concept. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2008;25(1):34–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller VA, et al. Patient involvement in informed consent for pediatric phase I cancer research. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2014;36(8):635–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Woodgate RL, Yanofsky RA. Parents’ experiences in decision making with childhood cancer clinical trials. Cancer Nurs. 2010;33(1):11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinds PS, et al. End-of-life decision making by adolescents, parents, and healthcare providers in pediatric oncology: research to evidence-based practice guidelines. Cancer Nurs. 2001;24(2):122–34 (quiz 135-6).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Day E, et al. Current understanding of decision-making in adolescents with cancer: a narrative systematic review. Palliat Med. 2016;30(10):920–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pollard S, Bansback N, Bryan S. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(9):1046–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Levine D, Cohen K, Wendler D. Shared medical decision-making: considering what options to present based on an ethical analysis of the treatment of brain tumors in very young children. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59(2):216–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. •• Robertson EG, et al. Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making about pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(7):1157–74. This article presents the data supportive specific actions clinicians can take to cultivate a shared decision-making approach in clinical trial communication.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dockett S, Perry B. Researching with young children: seeking assent. Child Indic Res. 2011;4(2):231–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yap TY, et al. Informed consent for pediatric phase 1 cancer trials: physicians’ perspectives. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Vries MC, et al. Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents’ and physicians’ experiences. BMC Med Ethics. 2011;12:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Sherratt FC, et al. Challenges conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in an oncology trial comparing active monitoring with radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308). Oncologist. 2020;25(4):e691–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Rooshenas L, et al. Conveying equipoise during recruitment for clinical trials: qualitative synthesis of clinicians’ practices across six randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kodish E, et al. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. JAMA. 2004;291(4):470–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reder EA, Serwint JR. Until the last breath: exploring the concept of hope for parents and health care professionals during a child’s serious illness. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(7):653–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kylmä J, Juvakka T. Hope in parents of adolescents with cancer–factors endangering and engendering parental hope. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11(3):262–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. • Kaye EC, et al. Bereaved parents, hope, and realism. Pediatrics. 2020;145(5):e20192771. This paper describes the known co-existence of hope with clear prognosis understanding among bereaved parents of children with cancer and why physicians should not mistake persistant hope for lack of understanding.

  33. Mack JW, et al. Communication about prognosis between parents and physicians of children with cancer: parent preferences and the impact of prognostic information. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5265–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mack JW, et al. Hope and prognostic disclosure. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(35):5636–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberg AR, Feudtner C. What else are you hoping for? Fostering hope in paediatric serious illness. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105(9):1004–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Feudtner C. The breadth of hopes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(24):2306–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mack JW, Feudtner C, Hinds PS. Communication and decision support for children with advanced cancer and their families. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;32:637–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. •• Blazin LJ, et al. Communicating effectively in pediatric cancer care: translating evidence into practice. Children (Basel). 2018;5(3):40. This paper reviews core principles for communicating well with pediatric cancer patients and their families and is the foundation on which the submitted manuscript is built.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Back A, Arnold R, Tulsky J. Mastering communication with seriously ill patients: balancing honesty with empathy and hope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. VitalTalk. Bridging inequity: understanding patients’ experiences. 2021 October 29, 2021]; Available from: https://www.vitaltalk.org/guides/bridging-inequity/. Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  41. Hamel LM, et al. Barriers to clinical trial enrollment in racial and ethnic minority patients with cancer. Cancer Control. 2016;23(4):327–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen MS Jr, et al. Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual: renewing the case for enhancing minority participation in cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 7(0 7)):1091–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fischer SM, et al. Apoyo con Cariño: strategies to promote recruiting, enrolling, and retaining Latinos in a cancer clinical trial. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(11):1392–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brown RF, et al. African-American patients with cancer Talking About Clinical Trials (TACT) with oncologists during consultations: evaluating the efficacy of tailored health messages in a randomised controlled trial-the TACT study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e012864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Snaman JM, et al. MyPref: pilot study of a novel communication and decision-making tool for adolescents and young adults with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(6):2983–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zamora ER, et al. The impact of language barriers and immigration status on the care experience for Spanish-speaking caregivers of patients with pediatric cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(12):2173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. • Mittal N, et al. Barriers to pediatric oncologist enrollment of adolescents and young adults on a cross-network National Clinical Trials Network supportive care cancer clinical trial. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2021. This paper explores the important connection between communication about clinical trials and clinical trial participation among AYA patients, a group typically underreprested in cancer clinical trials.

  48. Barakat LP, et al. A qualitative study of phase III cancer clinical trial enrollment decision-making: perspectives from adolescents, young adults, caregivers, and providers. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2014;3(1):3–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith M, et al. Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(3):966–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim A, et al. Characteristics and outcome of pediatric patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials. Oncologist. 2008;13(6):679–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Miller M. Phase I cancer trials. A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Cent Rep. 2000;30(4):34–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baker JN, et al. Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. Cancer. 2013;119(23):4154–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Davis TC, et al. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(3):134–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982;5(3–4):319–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Indiana University, 705 Riley Hospital Dr., Suite 4340, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Lindsay J. Blazin

  2. Department of Oncology, Division of Quality of Life & Palliative Care, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS 260, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA

    Andrea Cuviello, Holly Spraker-Perlman & Erica C. Kaye

Authors
  1. Lindsay J. Blazin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Cuviello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holly Spraker-Perlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erica C. Kaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have contributed meaningfully to this work. Dr. Blazin conceived of the topic and partnered with Dr. Cuviello to review the literature and draft the manuscript. Drs. Kaye and Spraker-Perlman reviewed and edited the draft, adding and clarifying key concepts. All authors approved this manuscript for publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsay J. Blazin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Palliative Medicine

Andrea Cuviello is co-first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blazin, L.J., Cuviello, A., Spraker-Perlman, H. et al. Approaches for Discussing Clinical Trials with Pediatric Oncology Patients and Their Families. Curr Oncol Rep 24, 723–732 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-022-01239-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-022-01239-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation