'Why us?' Causal attributions of childhood cancer survivors, survivors' parents and community comparisons - a mixed methods analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the cause of their cancer is important for many cancer patients. Childhood cancer survivors'/survivors' parents' beliefs about cancer etiology are understudied. We aimed to assess survivors'/parents' beliefs about what causes childhood cancer, compared with beliefs in the community. We also investigated the influence of clinical and socio-demographic characteristics on the participants' beliefs about cancer etiology. METHODS: This two-stage study investigated the participants' beliefs, by using questionnaires assessing causal attributions related to childhood cancer (stage 1) and then undertaking telephone interviews (stage 2; survivors/survivors' parents only) to get an in-depth understanding of survivors'/survivors' parents beliefs. We computed multivariable regressions to identify factors associated with the most commonly endorsed attributions: bad luck/chance, environmental factors and genetics. We analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred one individuals (64.6% survivors and 35.4% survivors' parents) and 510 community comparisons (53.1% community adults, 46.9% community parents) completed the question on causal attributions. We conducted 87 in-depth interviews. Survivors/survivors' parents (73.9%) were more likely to believe that chance/bad luck caused childhood cancer than community participants (42.4%). Community participants more frequently endorsed that genetics (75.3%) and environmental factors (65.3%) played a major role in childhood cancer etiology (versus survivors' and survivors' parents: genetics 20.6%, environmental factors: 19.3%). Community participants, participants with a first language other than English, and reporting a lower quality of life were less likely to attribute bad luck as a cause of childhood cancer. Community participants, all participants with a higher income and higher education were more likely to attribute childhood cancer etiology to environmental factors. CONCLUSION: Causal attributions differed between survivors/survivors' parents and community participants. Most of the parents and survivors seem to understand that there is nothing they have done to cause the cancer. Understanding survivors' and survivors' parents' causal attributions may be crucial to address misconceptions, offer access to services and to adapt current and future health behaviors.

Children and young people's understanding of inherited conditions and their attitudes towards genetic testing: A systematic review.

Children and young people are increasingly likely to receive information regarding inherited health risks relevant to their genetic relatives and themselves. We reviewed the literature to determine what children and young people (21 years and younger) understand about inherited conditions and their attitudes towards genetic testing. We screened 1815 abstracts to identify 20 studies representing the perspectives of 1811 children and young people between the ages of 6 and 21 years (1498 children or young people at general population-level risk from 9 studies, 313 affected/at risk from 15 studies). Children and young people at general population-level risk demonstrated a basic understanding that disease predisposition can be inherited within families. Those affected by or at risk of genetic conditions inferred their genetic status from observable, relational characteristics within their family and the results of personal genetic testing if it had occurred, but some misunderstandings of important genetic concepts were evident. Children and young people expressed interest in and a willingness to undertake personal genetic testing, but also articulated concerns about the limitations and risks of testing. Paediatric patients require developmentally-sensitive genetic counselling and support in navigating the unique landscape of their condition.

The Avatar Acceptability Study: Survivor, Parent and Community Willingness to Use Patient-Derived Xenografts to Personalize Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Using patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) to assess chemosensitivity to anti-cancer agents in real-time may improve cancer care by enabling individualized clinical decision-making. However, it is unknown whether this new approach will be met with acceptance by patients, family and community. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional structured survey to investigate PDX acceptability with 1550 individuals across Australia and New Zealand (648 survivors of adult and childhood cancer, versus 650 community comparisons; and 48 parents of childhood cancer survivors versus 204 community parents). We identified factors influencing willingness-to-use PDXs, willingness-to-pay, maximum acceptable wait-time, and maximum acceptable number of mice used per patient. FINDINGS: PDXs were highly acceptable: >80% of those affected by cancer felt the potential advantages of PDXs outweighed the disadvantages (community participants: 68%). Survivors' and survivors' parents' most highly endorsed advantage was 'increased chance of survival'. 'Harm to animals' was the least endorsed disadvantage for all groups. Cancer survivors were more willing to use PDXs than community comparisons [p < ·001]. Survivors and survivors' parents were willing to pay more [p < ·001; p = ∙004 respectively], wait longer for results [p = ·03; p = ∙01], and use more mice [p = ·01; p < ∙001] than community comparisons. Male survivors found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·01] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than female survivors. Survivors with higher incomes found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·002] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than survivors with lower incomes. Mothers found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·04] but were less willing to wait [p = ·02] than fathers. INTERPRETATION: We found significant attitudinal support for PDX-guided cancer care. Willingness-to-pay and maximum acceptable number of mice align well with likely future usage. Maximum acceptable wait-times were lower than is currently achievable, highlighting an important area for future patient education until technology has caught up.

Parents' attitudes toward genetic testing of children for health conditions: A systematic review.

This review assessed parents' attitudes toward childhood genetic testing for health conditions, with a focus on perceived advantages and disadvantages. We also evaluated the factors that influence parents' attitudes toward childhood genetic testing. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts and CINAHL. We screened 945 abstracts and identified 21 studies representing the views of 3934 parents. Parents reported largely positive attitudes toward childhood genetic testing across different genetic tests with varying medical utility. Parents perceived a range of advantages and disadvantages of childhood genetic testing. Childhood genetic testing was viewed by most as beneficial. Parents' education level, genetic status, sex and sociodemographic status were associated with reported attitudes. This yielded some conflicting findings, indicating the need for further research. Genetic counseling remains essential to support this population in making well-informed decisions. Targeted interventions tailored to specific families with different sociodemographic characteristics may be useful. Further research on the long-term impact of childhood genetic testing on families is warranted.

Cancer and children: where are we coming from? Where are we going?

The past four decades have seen remarkable progress in the treatment of childhood cancer and changes in the social environment in which cancer in the family is experienced. Current research in pediatric psycho-oncology focuses on psychosocial consequences of the disease and on differentiating which factors predict problematic versus positive outcomes in adjustment of the child and the family. The papers in this Special Issue reflect much of the recent developments in childhood psycho-oncology as well as the challenges to come.

Anticipated versus actual emotional reactions to disclosure of results of genetic tests for cancer susceptibility: findings from p53 and BRCA1 testing programs.

PURPOSE: We examined the ability of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in two structured research protocols to accurately anticipate emotional reactions to disclosure of their test result. We explored whether accuracy of emotional anticipation was associated with postdisclosure psychologic adjustment. METHODS: Data from 65 individuals were analyzed; 24 members of Li-Fraumeni cancer syndrome families were tested for p53 mutations (all 24 were unaffected), and 41 subjects with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility were tested for BRCA1 mutations (34 were unaffected and seven were affected). Subjects were from families in which a germline mutation had been previously identified. At the pretest session, subjects rated the extent to which they anticipated feeling each of six emotional states (relief, happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, and worry) after disclosure that they did or did not carry the familial mutation. After receiving their test result, they rated their feelings on the same scale of emotions for the appropriate condition. Extent of accuracy and association with psychologic distress at 6 months, as assessed with standardized measures, were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, mean levels of emotional reactions after receiving test results were not different from those anticipated before result disclosure. However, affected BRCA1 carriers experienced higher levels of anger and worry than they had anticipated. Underestimation of subsequent distress emotions related to test result was associated with a significant increase in general psychologic distress at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Unaffected individuals in cancer-predisposition testing programs are generally accurate in anticipating emotional reactions to test results. However, cancer patients may underestimate their distress after disclosure of positive results and could benefit from intervention strategies.

BRCA1 testing and informed consent in a woman with mild retardation.

Cancer predisposition testing can pose complex genetic counseling issues. This case report discusses whether it is appropriate to provide BRCA1 testing to a woman with limited intellectual capacity and documented psychological distress. This case is one of several cancer counseling cases presented to our Genetic Counseling Supervision Group over the past three and a half years. The Supervision Group provided valuable feedback and support to proceed with this challenging case.

The genetic testing of children for cancer susceptibility: ethical, legal, and social issues.

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility raises many ethical, legal, and social concerns, particularly when testing children is also considered. The complexity of defining medical and psychosocial risks and benefits of genetic predisposition testing for multifactorial disorders, like cancer, is discussed. Presumed incompetence of children and adolescents and questionable ability of many adults to understand complex genetic information raise informed consent questions. Guidelines can aid professionals but there must also be a means of evaluating individual cases. Further research is needed to determine optimal methods of educating children and adults about genetic issues and to discriminate factors which contribute to satisfaction with decision-making about genetic testing. Legal issues and practical considerations are examined involving a duty to warn family members about genetic susceptibility and to recontact previously-tested individuals as knowledge advances. Recommendations are offered concerning roles for social scientists and legal scholars in ethical integration of genetic testing into our medical and social framework.

Attitudes of 47 mothers of pediatric oncology patients toward genetic testing for cancer predisposition.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes toward testing for cancer susceptibility genes, we interviewed mothers of pediatric oncology patients about their cancer causation theories, interest in hypothetical predisposition testing for themselves and their healthy children, and anticipated impact of testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The subjects were 47 mothers of two or more living children, one of whom was 6 to 24 months postdiagnosis of cancer. Potential risks and benefits of hypothetical genetic predisposition testing for cancer susceptibility were described. A semistructured interview assessed the following: (1) recall of discussions with the pediatric oncologist about the possible role of heredity in causing the child's cancer; (2) mothers' personal theories of the etiology of their child's cancer; (3) family cancer history; (4) interest in genetic predisposition testing for themselves and unaffected (cancer-free) children; and (5) expected sequelae of testing. RESULTS: If genetic cancer predisposition tests were available, 51% of mothers would test themselves and 42% would test healthy children, even with no medical benefit. With established medical benefit, an additional 36% of mothers would seek testing for themselves and another 49% would test their healthy children. Interest in cancer predisposition testing among mothers extended far beyond those with significant family histories of cancer. Most mothers would consider minor children's wishes in the decision about testing and would tell children under age 18 their test results. CONCLUSION: As increasing numbers of cancer susceptibility genes are identified, parents of pediatric oncology patients may be receptive to opportunities to test themselves and their healthy children. Counseling will be important to aid in decisions about testing. Research is essential to evaluate the long-term impact of predisposition testing.

Ethical, social and counselling issues in hereditary cancer susceptibility.

Genetic testing for hereditary susceptibility to disease is new. Much has been learned from experience with Huntington's disease and other non-malignant conditions. There are some differences in the case of predisposition testing for cancer: there is often the perception that cancer is preventable and sometimes curable, in contrast to other hereditary conditions. Testing raises many issues new to the medical community and to the public as well. There is great concern that the explosive technology be used responsibly, so that the potential benefits of genetic knowledge are not eclipsed by the risks to autonomy, privacy and justice. Practical concerns about insurability and discrimination may inhibit some at risk individuals from taking advantage of this powerful technology. There has been considerable effort already in the UK, Europe and the USA at the research and social levels to create protection for individuals found to carry genetic susceptibility to disease.

Educational, occupational, and insurance status of childhood cancer survivors in their fourth and fifth decades of life.

PURPOSE: Survivors of childhood cancer who are now greater than or equal to 30 years of age are available for study in significant numbers for the first time. An evaluation of their educational achievement, current employment status, frequency of problems in the work-place, and ability to obtain affordable health and life insurance was the aim of this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a case-control study of 219 childhood cancer survivors with individually matched controls from two tertiary-care pediatric centers. Telephone interviews were used and drew on a 356-item basic instrument for both subjects and controls. Medical (including intensity of therapy), marital, and psychosocial areas were included in the survey, but statistical comparisons concentrated on educational and economic issues. RESULTS: The overall current status of survivors and controls in the relevant areas, ie, education, employment, and insurance, was similar. A history of employment discrimination for entry into the uniformed services and in other special situations, and life insurance discrimination during the initial years after the completion of therapy was noted. Survivors experienced few problems in the work-place. Survivors of CNS tumors were unique, with problems in many of the areas studied, although there were notable individual exceptions. CONCLUSION: With the exception of those individuals with CNS tumor histories, survivors who were treated in the era of 1945 to 1975 had few economic sequelae of cancer or its therapy that extended beyond the first decades after treatment.

Psychological impact of bone marrow transplantation: current perspectives.

Despite advances in bone marrow transplant technology, major psychological stresses remain. Donor selection has become psychologically more complex with the option of seeking an unrelated donor. Family dislocation continues to be necessary for many families despite the proliferation of transplant centers. The range of choices between treatment options, level of room sterility, and the like can leave families open to guilt about their choices. Unpredictability of the transplant course, difficulty for patients in assessing the seriousness of symptoms, and the need to rely on a changing roster of teaching hospital physicians contribute to patient anxiety. Contrary to patient expectations, post-discharge recovery is often longer and more complicated, physically and psychologically, than expected. Follow-up studies on BMT patients show that a majority have a return to a satisfactory level of activity, although some physical symptoms may remain. Behavioral symptoms did increase, with estimates ranging from 15-35 percent of the survivors showing symptoms a year or more post-transplant. Staff impact is briefly addressed. The need for more research on psychosocial follow-up is stressed.

Group meetings for parents and spouses of bone marrow transplant patients.

To reduce the stress and social isolation of being the parent or spouse of a patient hospitalized for bone marrow transplantation (BMT), a support group for family members was established. Sharing the common experience of the BMT procedure was valuable to family members despite differences in patient's age or disease, relationship to the patient, or socio-economic status. Recommendations are made to include similar groups in planning to meet the psychosocial needs of family members at other centers where patients are treated with high-risk, high intensity procedures.

Surviving bone marrow transplantation: the patient in the other bed.

Patients hospitalized for bone marrow transplantation tend to deny the significance for them of the death of another transplant patient. Patients emphasize, often with encouragement from the medical staff, the differences between their conditions. Interviews held after discharge with the survivors of five pairs of patients hospitalized together in which one patient died show that the death of another patient having bone marrow transplantation has a major impact on the surviving patient. Early identification develops between patients, and after one patient dies there are attempts at distancing and denial of identification, survivor guilt, and fears of a similar fate that continue after transplantation. Healthy reactions are differentiated from nonadaptive reactions. Similarities to other forms of survivor guilt are discussed, including the guilt of the medical staff.