Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41776770›Full record

ReviewCA: a cancer journal for clinicians

Ethical considerations of genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology: A narrative review.

Brittany L Greene, Jonathan M Marron

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Brittany L GreeneSeattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9551-815X
Jonathan M MarronDepartment of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8935-8524

Funding

Seattle Children's Research Institute, Clinical Research Scholars Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomics-and genomic testing in particular-has transformed oncology, facilitating both targeted therapies and personalized care. In pediatric oncology, unique clinical and ethical considerations arise. Compared with adults, children and adolescents are affected by more limited evidence regarding test performance, variant interpretation, and the clinical utility of genomically informed interventions. Nevertheless, genomic findings may have implications beyond the patient, affecting their parents, siblings, and other relatives and raising questions around consent, assent, privacy, and psychosocial impact. This narrative review examines how ethical dimensions of genetic and genomic testing evolve across the pediatric cancer continuum, from diagnosis and treatment through survivorship and transition to adult care. Attention is given to communication strategies, interdisciplinary support, and equity concerns that influence the responsible integration of genomic medicine. The authors also identify priority areas for future inquiry, including incorporation of children's perspectives, longitudinal approaches to recontact and reconsent, and better understanding of how genomic information affects treatment decision-making. Pediatric genetic and genomic testing in oncology holds great promise, but its benefits can only be realized through thoughtfully developed and standardized communication practices, careful ethical deliberation, and equitable implementation. By proactively addressing these issues, pediatric oncologists can harness genomic advances in ways that respect and support children and their families.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPediatricsAdolescentChildGenomicsHumansPrecision Medicinedecision‐makingethicsgenetic testinggenomicspediatricsprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID41776770
PMCPMC12957712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.