Search

Background Receipt of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at an institution different from the primary oncologist's institution is a complex, multistep process. Referral by oncologists plays an important role in the process but may be susceptible to bias. Methods Oncologists who previously referred patients for CAR-T therapy at 5 pediatric hospitals were sent surveys by email exploring their CAR-T referral practices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate analyses examined associations among oncologist characteristics, familiarity with CAR-T therapy, and referral practices. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of participants and used thematic analysis to code transcripts. Results Sixty-eight oncologists completed the survey; 77% expressed being "very familiar" with CAR-T therapy. Hispanic oncologists and oncologists at institutions with 50 or fewer new diagnoses per year were more likely to identify as less familiar with CAR-T therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 64.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 10 452.50, P  = .04 and OR = 24.5, 95% CI = 3.3 to 317.3, P  = .005, respectively). In total, 38% of respondents considered nonclinical features (compliance, social support, resources, insurance, language, education, and race or ethnicity) influential in referral decisions. Oncologists who were Hispanic and oncologists who had been practicing for 20 or more years were more likely to consider these features significantly influential (OR = 14.52, 95% CI = 1.49 to 358.66, P  = .04 and OR = 6.76, 95% CI = 1.18 to 50.5, P  = .04). Nine oncologists completed in-depth interviews; common themes included barriers and concerns regarding CAR-T therapy referral, the value of an established relationship with a CAR-T therapy center, and poor communication after CAR-T therapy. Conclusions Nearly 40% of oncologists consider nonclinical features significantly influential when deciding to refer patients for CAR-T therapy, raising concern for bias in the referral process. Establishing formal partnerships with CAR-T therapy centers may help address physician barriers in referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractAn anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Precision medicine is projected to become integral to childhood cancer care. As such, it is essential to support families to understand what precision medicine entails. Methods: A total of 182 parents and 23 adolescent patients participating in Precision Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM), an Australian precision medicine clinical trial for high‐risk childhood cancer, completed questionnaires after study enrollment (time 0 [T0]). Of the parents, 108 completed a questionnaire and 45 completed an interview following return of precision medicine results (time 1 [T1]). We analyzed the mixed‐methods data comprising measures exploring families' perceptions and understanding of PRISM's participant information sheet and consent form (PISCF), and factors associated with understanding. Results: Most parents were satisfied with the PISCF, rating it as at least "somewhat" clearly presented (n = 160/175; 91%) and informative (n = 158/175; 90%). Many suggested improvements including the use of clearer language and a more visually engaging format. Parents' actual understanding of precision medicine was low on average, but scores improved between T0 and T1 (55.8/100‐60.0/100; p =.012). Parents from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds (n = 42/177; 25%) had lower actual understanding scores than those from a Western/European background whose first language was English (p =.010). There was little correlation between parents' perceived and actual understanding scores (p =.794; Pearson correlation –0.020; 95% CI, –0.169 to 0.116). Most adolescent patients read the PISCF either "briefly" or "not at all" (70%) and had a perceived understanding score of 63.6/100 on average. Conclusions: Our study revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. We highlighted areas for potential intervention such as through targeted information resources. Plain Language Summary: Precision medicine is projected to become part of the standard of care for children with cancer. Precision medicine aims to give the right treatment to the right patient and involves several complex techniques, many of which may be challenging to understand.Our study analyzed questionnaire and interview data from parents and adolescent patients enrolled in an Australian precision medicine trial.Findings revealed gaps in families' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. Drawing on parents' suggestions and the literature, we make brief recommendations about improving information provision to families, such as through targeted information resources. Gaps exist in parents' and adolescent patients' understanding of childhood cancer precision medicine. This study highlights areas for potential intervention such as through targeted information resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]