BACKGROUND: Informed consent for a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial is a delicate process, and is made more complex by the difficulty of the information and the requirement for parental consent, and patient assent when applicable. This analysis identifies suggestions for improving the informed consent process received from parents and adolescent and young adult patients (aged 14 years-21 years) who had the option of participating in a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. METHODS: A total of 57 parents and 20 patients completed interviews as part of a multisite, prospective, descriptive study. These transcribed interviews were studied using established content analysis methods. RESULTS: Parent and patient responses contained 220 suggestions and 54 suggestions, respectively. A total of 21 unique suggestions for improvement emerged in 3 main themes: 1) provision of more information; 2) structure and presentation of the informed consent process, and 3) suggestions for physicians conducting the process. Common suggestions included providing more specific information about the trial, allowing more time for decision-making, and using different methods to deliver information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants involved in the informed consent process for a phase 1 trial provided specific recommendations to research teams to enhance the process. Physician/investigators should be informed of these recommendations and develop and test interventions incorporating them. Cancer 2013;119:4154-61.

Background The aim of this study was to examine adolescent patients’ perspectives on their understanding and decision making about a pediatric Phase I cancer study. Procedure Participants included adolescents ages 14-21 years with cancer (N = 20), all of whom attended a Phase I study consent conference. Participants responded to closed- and open-ended questions on a verbally administered structured interview, which assessed aspects of understanding and decision making about the Phase I study. Results All participants decided to enroll in the Phase I study. The majority of participants understood that participation was voluntary, entailed risks, and that they could withdraw. Most also believed that participation in the Phase I study would increase the length of their lives. The most frequent reasons for enrolling were positive clinical benefit, needing an option, impact on quality of life, and few side effects or fewer than those of current or past treatments. Eighty-five percent of participants reported that they themselves made the final decision about enrollment in the Phase I study. Conclusions Most participants hoped or expected that the Phase I study would provide a direct benefit (increased survival time or cure) and reported that they themselves were the final decision-maker about enrollment. Clinicians may underestimate the role of adolescents, especially if they believe that parents typically make such decisions. Future research should assess the actual participation of children and adolescents during the informed consent process and explore the role of hope in their decision making about Phase I studies.

Objective To examine children’s and adolescents’ involvement in the informed consent conference for phase I cancer trials and test associations with patient age, ease of understanding, and pressure to participate. Procedure Participants included 61 patients ages 7 through 21 years who were offered participation in a phase I trial. Consent conferences were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded for communication between patients and physicians and between patients and parents. Results Based on word counts, the mean proportion of the consent conference in which the physician was talking to the patient was 36%; the vast majority (73%) of this communication consisted of giving information. Physician-patient communication increased with age, but overall levels of patient-to-physician communication were low (3%). After controlling for patient age, greater physician-to-patient communication was associated with greater ease of understanding. Conclusions The focus on providing information in the context of informed consent may come at the expense of other communication exchanges that are important to patients, especially in the context of end of life decisions. Children and adolescents may benefit from the assent process when physicians direct more of their communication to them. Future research should identify the reasons for low patient communication during the consent conference and strategies to enhance their participation in decision making about phase I trial enrollment.

The use of NIPT to identify sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes will introduce new challenges for clinicians to ensure pregnant women have the information and resources to make informed choices about NIPT when used for these conditions.

Background Informed consent for clinical research includes two components: informed consent documents (ICD) and informed consent conversations (ICC). Readability software has been used to help simplify the language of the ICD, but rarely employed to assess the language during the ICC, which may influence the quality of informed consent. This analysis was completed to determine if length and reading levels of transcribed ICCs are lower than their corresponding ICDs for selected clinical trials, and to assess whether investigator experience affected use of simpler language and comprehensiveness. Methods Prospective study where ICCs were audio-recorded at 6 institutions when families were offered participation in pediatric phase I oncology trials. Word count, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) of ICCs were compared to corresponding ICDs, including the frequency that investigators addressed 8 pre-specified critical consent elements during the ICC. Results Sixty-nine unique physician/protocol pairs were identified. Overall, ICCs contained fewer words (4,677 vs. 6,364; p=0.0016), had lower FKGL (6 vs. 9.7; p=<0.0001) and higher FRES (77.8 vs. 56.7; p<0.0001) than their respective ICDs, but were more likely to omit critical consent elements, such as voluntariness (55%) and dose limiting toxicities (26%). Years of investigator experience was not correlated with reliably covering critical elements or decreased linguistic complexity. Conclusions Clinicians use more understandable language during ICCs than the corresponding ICD, but less reliably cover elements critical to fully informed consent. Focused efforts at providing communication training for clinician-investigators should be done to optimize the synergy between the ICD and conversation.