Patient/parent perspectives on genomic tumor profiling of pediatric solid tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic tumor profiling (GTP) plays an important role in the care of many adult cancer patients. Its role in pediatric oncology is still evolving, with only a subset of patients currently expected to receive clinically significant results. Little is known about perspectives of pediatric oncology patients/parents on GTP. PROCEDURE: We surveyed individuals who previously underwent GTP through the iCat (Individualized Cancer Therapy) pilot study of molecular profiling in children with relapsed, refractory, and high-risk solid tumors at four pediatric cancer centers. Following return of profiling results, a cross-sectional survey was offered to the patient, if he or she was 18 years or older at enrollment, or parent, if he or she was under 18 years of age. Forty-five surveys (85% response) were completed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of respondents reported hoping participation would help find cures for future patients, while 59% (26/44) hoped it would increase their/their child's chance of cure. Most had few concerns about GTP, but 12% (5/43) worried they would learn their/their child's cancer was less treatable or more aggressive than previously thought. Sixty-four percent (29/45) reported feeling their participation had helped others and 44% (20/45) felt they had helped themselves/their own child, despite only one substudy subject receiving targeted therapy matched to GTP findings. Fifty-four percent (21/39) wished to receive all available profiling data, including findings unrelated to cancer and of unclear significance. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in pediatric GTP research perceive benefits of GTP to themselves and others, but expectations of personal benefits of GTP may exceed actual positive impact. These issues warrant consideration during consent discussions about GTP research participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".