Although physicians need to respect the wishes of children's legal representatives, they also have a duty to promote patients' best interests. We recommend that physicians employ a proactive stance in ensuring that children with cancer are appropriately informed about their diagnosis. In case of parents' arduous objections to full disclosure, an ethical consultation should be considered.

Communication about diagnosis and medical treatment for children suffering from life-threatening illnesses is complex. It is a primary step in involving underage patients and families in care and lays the foundation for obtaining parental permission and patient assent for treatment. In practice child participation in care is often difficult to obtain due to patients' different and sometimes fluctuating preferences, but also parents' protective strategies. Physicians may be susceptible to parental wishes to limit information and feel uncomfortable discussing issues related to uncertainty of cure with patients. A qualitative study in Romanian paediatric oncology units was conducted to explore children's involvement from the perspectives of parents and oncologists. Interviews with participants discussed 18 patient cases. Data were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to interpret and mine patients' involvement during treatment. Different facets of patient participation were identified: restricting, widening and enhancing involvement. A fourth category, unintentional involvement, occurred for all patients due to children's observations during long-term hospitalisations and access to Internet. Uncertainty overarched parental attitudes regarding the extent to which children should be included. Physicians usually complied with parental wishes to limit involvement, but together with parents involved patients at least in a practical way. Adults' protective attitude may backfire, as adolescents' online searches often expose patients to worse-case scenarios. Further research should acknowledge the hazards of restricted diagnosis disclosure and develop clinician tools to support families in communicating with patients. This should be paralleled by physician efforts to elicit patients' needs regarding participation.

This retrospective study compared the overall survival, the event-free survival, and the timing of chemotherapy in patients with advanced Burkitt lymphoma with and without laparotomy. Thirty-five patients with advanced abdominal Burkitt lymphoma treated at least partially at the Centre Léon Bérard between 1981 and 1992 were included in this study. The diagnosis was obtained by laparotomy (LAP group) in 21 patients (17 stage III, 4 stage IV) and by other methods (non-LAP group) in 14 patients (5 stage III, 9 stage IV). The overall survival (71 and 93%) and the event-free survival (66 and 79%) were similar in the LAP and non-LAP groups, and the relapse rate was five (three local) in the LAP group compared with three (none local) in the non-LAP group. The local complication rate (9 of 21 versus 2 of 14) and the toxic death rate (2 of 21 versus 1 of 14) were slightly higher in the LAP group. Laparotomy also caused delays in therapy and increased the overall hospital stay. The mean interval from diagnosis to the start of the fourth course of chemotherapy was 57 days compared with 48 days and the average hospital stay was 44.4 days compared with 39 days for the LAP and non-LAP groups, respectively. Because advanced Burkitt lymphoma can be diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration, and chemotherapy cures more than 80% of the patients, there is no need for initial surgery, apart from acute emergencies. Furthermore, laparotomy delay chemotherapy and might reduce the survival rate.

No abstract