BACKGROUND: The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology.METHODS: Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing.RESULTS: Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results.CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology‐based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer‐based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype‐phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352–2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

There is little information about the content of ethics consultations (EC) in pediatrics. We sought to describe the reasons for consultation and ethical principles addressed during EC in pediatrics through retrospective review and directed content analysis of EC records (2000–2011) at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Patient-based EC were highly complex and often involved evaluation of parental decision making, particularly consideration of the risks and benefits of a proposed medical intervention, and the physician's fiduciary responsibility to the patient. Nonpatient consultations provided guidance in the development of institutional policies that would broadly affect patients and families. This is one of the few existing reviews of the content of pediatric EC and indicates that the distribution of ethical issues and reasons for moral distress are different than with adults. Pediatric EC often facilitates complex decision making among multiple stakeholders, and further prospective research is needed on the role of ethics consultation in pediatrics.

The use of propofol for palliative sedation of children is not well documented. Here we describe our experience with the use of propofol palliative sedation therapy (PST) to alleviate intractable end-of-life suffering in three pediatric oncology patients, and propose an algorithm for the selection of such candidates for PST. We identified inpatients who had received propofol PST within 20 days of death at our institution between 2003 and 2010. Their medical records were reviewed for indicators of pain, suffering, and sedation from 48 hours before PST to the time of death. We also tabulated consumption of opioids and other symptom management medications, pain scores, and adverse events of propofol, and reviewed clinical notes for descriptors of suffering and/or palliation. Three of 192 (1.6%) inpatients (aged 6-15 years) received propofol PST at the end of life. Consumption of opioids and other supportive medications decreased during PST in two cases. In the third case, pain scores remained high and sedation was the only effective comfort measure. Clinical notes suggested improved comfort and rest in all patients. Propofol infusions were continued until the time of death. Our experience demonstrates that propofol PST is a useful palliative option for pediatric patients experiencing intractable suffering at the end of life. We describe an algorithm that can be used to identify such children who are candidates for PST.