» Articles » PMID: 30385234

The Avatar Acceptability Study: Survivor, Parent and Community Willingness to Use Patient-Derived Xenografts to Personalize Cancer Care

Overview
Journal EBioMedicine
Date 2018 Nov 3
PMID 30385234
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Using patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) to assess chemosensitivity to anti-cancer agents in real-time may improve cancer care by enabling individualized clinical decision-making. However, it is unknown whether this new approach will be met with acceptance by patients, family and community.

Methods: We used a cross-sectional structured survey to investigate PDX acceptability with 1550 individuals across Australia and New Zealand (648 survivors of adult and childhood cancer, versus 650 community comparisons; and 48 parents of childhood cancer survivors versus 204 community parents). We identified factors influencing willingness-to-use PDXs, willingness-to-pay, maximum acceptable wait-time, and maximum acceptable number of mice used per patient.

Findings: PDXs were highly acceptable: >80% of those affected by cancer felt the potential advantages of PDXs outweighed the disadvantages (community participants: 68%). Survivors' and survivors' parents' most highly endorsed advantage was 'increased chance of survival'. 'Harm to animals' was the least endorsed disadvantage for all groups. Cancer survivors were more willing to use PDXs than community comparisons [p < ·001]. Survivors and survivors' parents were willing to pay more [p < ·001; p = ∙004 respectively], wait longer for results [p = ·03; p = ∙01], and use more mice [p = ·01; p < ∙001] than community comparisons. Male survivors found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·01] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than female survivors. Survivors with higher incomes found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·002] and were willing to pay more [p < ·001] than survivors with lower incomes. Mothers found PDXs more acceptable [p = ·04] but were less willing to wait [p = ·02] than fathers.

Interpretation: We found significant attitudinal support for PDX-guided cancer care. Willingness-to-pay and maximum acceptable number of mice align well with likely future usage. Maximum acceptable wait-times were lower than is currently achievable, highlighting an important area for future patient education until technology has caught up.

Citing Articles

Precision Medicine Is Changing the Roles of Healthcare Professionals, Scientists, and Research Staff: Learnings from a Childhood Cancer Precision Medicine Trial.

Daly R, Hetherington K, Hazell E, Wadling B, Tyrrell V, Tucker K J Pers Med. 2023; 13(7).

PMID: 37511646 PMC: 10381580. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071033.


Establishment and Characterization of Patient-Derived Xenograft Model of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Derived from Malignant Pleural Effusions.

Liao H, Zhou S, Chen S, Li J, Zhang Z, Meng L Cancer Manag Res. 2023; 15:165-174.

PMID: 36824151 PMC: 9942510. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S389339.


The Promise of Patient-Derived Preclinical Models to Accelerate the Implementation of Personalised Medicine for Children with Neuroblastoma.

Tucker E, George S, Angelini P, Bruna A, Chesler L J Pers Med. 2021; 11(4).

PMID: 33808071 PMC: 8065808. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040248.


Avatar acceptability: views from the Australian Cystic Fibrosis community on the use of personalised organoid technology to guide treatment decisions.

Fawcett L, Wakefield C, Sivam S, Middleton P, Wark P, Widger J ERJ Open Res. 2021; 7(1).

PMID: 33532470 PMC: 7836586. DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00448-2020.


CD24-targeted fluorescence imaging in patient-derived xenograft models of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.

Kleinmanns K, Bischof K, Anandan S, Popa M, Akslen L, Fosse V EBioMedicine. 2020; 56:102782.

PMID: 32454401 PMC: 7248428. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102782.

References
1.
Wakefield C, Doolan E, Fardell J, Signorelli C, Quinn V, Tucker K . Protocol for the avatar acceptability study: a multiperspective cross-sectional study evaluating the acceptability of using patient-derived xenografts to guide personalised cancer care in Australia and New Zealand. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(8):e024064. PMC: 6089310. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024064. View

2.
Hidalgo M, Amant F, Biankin A, Budinska E, Byrne A, Caldas C . Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 2014; 4(9):998-1013. PMC: 4167608. DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0001. View

3.
Schuppli C, Molento C, Weary D . Understanding attitudes towards the use of animals in research using an online public engagement tool. Public Underst Sci. 2013; 24(3):358-74. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513490466. View

4.
Cuffe S, Hon H, Qiu X, Tobros K, Wong C, De Souza B . Cancer patients acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2014; 24(7):348-55. DOI: 10.1097/FPC.0000000000000061. View

5.
Garrido-Laguna I, Uson M, Rajeshkumar N, Tan A, de Oliveira E, Karikari C . Tumor engraftment in nude mice and enrichment in stroma- related gene pathways predict poor survival and resistance to gemcitabine in patients with pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17(17):5793-800. PMC: 3210576. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0341. View