Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38997469›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

Psychological and ethical issues raised by genomic in paediatric care pathway, a qualitative analysis with parents and childhood cancer patients.

Marion Droin-Mollard, Sandrine de Montgolfier, Anne-Paule Gimenez-Roqueplo, Cécile Flahault, Arnaud Petit, Franck Bourdeaut, Sophie Julia, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Isabelle Coupier, Fatoumata Simaga and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. What helps or hinders adult cancer patients in accepting dietary interventions during chemotherapy? A qualitative synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Marion Droin-MollardUF of Psychology and Liaison and Emergency Psychiatry, DMU Psychiatry and Addictology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, F-75015, Paris, France.
Sandrine de MontgolfierIRIS Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Enjeux Sociaux (UMR 8156 CNRS-997 INSERM-EHESS-UPSN), Campus Condorcet, Aubervilliers, France. sandrine.demontgolfier@u-pec.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-4216-9379
Anne-Paule Gimenez-RoqueploDépartement de Médecine Génomique des Tumeurs et des Cancers, Consultation d'oncogénétique Multidisciplinaire des Cancers Rares, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4816-670X
Cécile FlahaultUF of Psychology and Liaison and Emergency Psychiatry, DMU Psychiatry and Addictology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, F-75015, Paris, France.
Arnaud PetitService d'Hématologie et d'Oncologie Pédiatrique, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8363-1622
Franck BourdeautSIREDO Pediatric Oncology Center, Laboratory of Translational Research in Pediatric Oncology-INSERMU830, Institut Curie, Paris Sciences Lettres Research University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9489-6781
Sophie JuliaUMR 1027 INSERM, University of Toulouse & Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Emmanuelle Rial-SebbagUMR 1027 INSERM, University of Toulouse & University Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Isabelle CoupierCHU Montpellier, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve Montpellier, Service de Génétique Médicale et Oncogénétique, Montpellier, France.
Fatoumata SimagaDepartment of Genetics, Institut Curie, Paris, France.ORCID 0009-0004-6277-7621
Laurence BrugièresDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Léa Guerrini-RousseauDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Béatrice ClaretDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Hélène CavéAssistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Robert Debré, Département de Génétique, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2840-1511
Marion StrulluINSERM UMR_S1131, Institut de Recherche Saint-Louis, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France.
Lucile HervouetIRIS Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Enjeux Sociaux (UMR 8156 CNRS-997 INSERM-EHESS-UPSN), Campus Condorcet, Aubervilliers, France.
Khadija Lahlou-LaforêtUF of Psychology and Liaison and Emergency Psychiatry, DMU Psychiatry and Addictology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, F-75015, Paris, France.

Funding

Institut National Du Cancer (French National Cancer Institute) 2018-127Institut National Du Cancer (French National Cancer Institute) 2018-2022 SHS-127Institut National Du Cancer (French National Cancer Institute) 2022-2026 Chaire EMPWT 16048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In paediatric oncology, genomics raises new ethical, legal and psychological issues, as somatic and constitutional situations intersect throughout the care pathway. The discovery of potential predisposition in this context is sometimes carried out outside the usual framework. This article focuses on the views of children, adolescents, and young adults (AYA) with cancer and their parents about their experience with genomic testing. Forty-eight semi-structured interviews were performed with children or AYAs with cancer and one of their parents, before and/or after receiving the genetic test results. The interviews were fully transcribed, coded and thematically analysed using an inductive method. This analysis revealed several themes that are key issues: perceived understanding and consenting, apprehension about the test outcomes (expectations and fears), perception and attitude towards incidental findings. The main expectation was an aetiological explanation. Children and AYAs also emphasised the altruistic meaning of genetic testing, while parents seemed to expect a therapeutic and preventive approach for their child and the rest of the family. Parents were more concerned about a family risk, while patients were more afraid of cancer relapse or transmission to their descendants. Both groups suggested possible feelings of guilt concerning family transmission and imaginary representations of what genomics may allow. Incidental findings were not understood by patients, while some parents perceived the related issues and hesitated between wanting or not to know. A multidisciplinary approach would be an interesting way to help parents and children and AYAs to better grasp the complexity of genetic and/or genomic testing.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsParentsAdolescentAdultChildFemaleGenomicsHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38997469
PMCPMC11577070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.