Genomic sequencing in paediatric oncology: navigating conflicting roles and responsibilities.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Catherine Goudie, Ma'n H Zawati, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Anne-Marie Laberge
{"title":"Genomic sequencing in paediatric oncology: navigating conflicting roles and responsibilities.","authors":"Catherine Goudie, Ma'n H Zawati, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Anne-Marie Laberge","doi":"10.1136/jmg-2024-110410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores the ethical and moral challenges faced by paediatric oncologists when they are informed of patient genomic results, particularly during molecular tumour boards (MTBs), highlighting the interplay between their clinic, research and expert roles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using a survey distributed to paediatric oncologists in Quebec followed by optional semi-structured interviews. Oncologists' attitudes and comfort levels with six hypothetical germline DNA results identified in a patient from a clinical vignette were assessed using Likert scales. Hypothetical genetic results represented ethical challenges of extended paediatric genomic sequencing. Interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants to gain insight and context on key survey results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty per cent (n=28) of oncologists in Quebec completed the survey; five participated in the interviews. Comfort levels of oncologists were influenced by the type of genetic result (expected, secondary, incidental finding), whether or not the oncologist was the patient's treating physician, and whether the information disclosed to the patient aligned with the information that they had received. Awareness of a genetic result was sufficient to trigger a feeling of responsibility and liability for that result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Oncologists who take part in genomic sequencing initiatives and who attend MTBs have privileged access to genomic results, above what may be accessible to patients. This imbalance in knowledge contributes to moral discomfort experienced by oncologists who feel responsible for genomic information they are aware of. We propose recommendations applicable to consent processes, policies and pipelines for sharing genomic results.</p>","PeriodicalId":16237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"138-146"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg-2024-110410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study explores the ethical and moral challenges faced by paediatric oncologists when they are informed of patient genomic results, particularly during molecular tumour boards (MTBs), highlighting the interplay between their clinic, research and expert roles.

Methods: This was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using a survey distributed to paediatric oncologists in Quebec followed by optional semi-structured interviews. Oncologists' attitudes and comfort levels with six hypothetical germline DNA results identified in a patient from a clinical vignette were assessed using Likert scales. Hypothetical genetic results represented ethical challenges of extended paediatric genomic sequencing. Interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants to gain insight and context on key survey results.

Results: Eighty per cent (n=28) of oncologists in Quebec completed the survey; five participated in the interviews. Comfort levels of oncologists were influenced by the type of genetic result (expected, secondary, incidental finding), whether or not the oncologist was the patient's treating physician, and whether the information disclosed to the patient aligned with the information that they had received. Awareness of a genetic result was sufficient to trigger a feeling of responsibility and liability for that result.

Conclusion: Oncologists who take part in genomic sequencing initiatives and who attend MTBs have privileged access to genomic results, above what may be accessible to patients. This imbalance in knowledge contributes to moral discomfort experienced by oncologists who feel responsible for genomic information they are aware of. We propose recommendations applicable to consent processes, policies and pipelines for sharing genomic results.

基因组测序在儿科肿瘤学:导航冲突的角色和责任。
背景:本研究探讨了儿科肿瘤学家在被告知患者基因组结果时所面临的伦理和道德挑战,特别是在分子肿瘤委员会(MTBs)期间,突出了他们的临床,研究和专家角色之间的相互作用。方法:这是一项解释性顺序混合方法研究,使用对魁北克儿科肿瘤学家的调查,随后是可选的半结构化访谈。肿瘤学家的态度和舒适度与六个假设生殖系DNA结果鉴定的病人从临床小插图使用李克特量表进行评估。假设的遗传结果代表了扩展儿科基因组测序的伦理挑战。与一组参与者进行了访谈,以获得对关键调查结果的见解和背景。结果:魁北克80% (n=28)的肿瘤学家完成了调查;5人参加了访谈。肿瘤学家的舒适度受到以下因素的影响:遗传结果的类型(预期的、继发的、偶然发现的)、肿瘤学家是否是患者的治疗医师,以及向患者披露的信息是否与他们收到的信息一致。意识到遗传结果足以引发对该结果的责任和义务感。结论:参与基因组测序计划和参加MTBs的肿瘤学家有特权获得基因组结果,高于患者可能获得的结果。这种知识上的不平衡导致肿瘤学家感到道德上的不适,他们觉得自己对自己所知道的基因组信息负有责任。我们提出了适用于同意过程、政策和共享基因组结果管道的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Genetics
Journal of Medical Genetics 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
92
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Genetics is a leading international peer-reviewed journal covering original research in human genetics, including reviews of and opinion on the latest developments. Articles cover the molecular basis of human disease including germline cancer genetics, clinical manifestations of genetic disorders, applications of molecular genetics to medical practice and the systematic evaluation of such applications worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信