Parents' experiences of their children's presence in discussions with physicians about leukemia

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine parents' views regarding their preadolescent child's presence during discussions about serious illnesses. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews with parents of children receiving treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia were conducted. Parents were sampled from 6 UK treatment centers. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative method and content analysis. RESULTS: We report on interviews with 53 parents (33 mothers, 20 fathers). Parents acknowledged the benefits of communicating openly with children, but few thought that their child's presence in discussions was straightforwardly desirable. They described how their child's presence restricted their own communication with physicians, made concentrating difficult, and interfered with their efforts to care for their child emotionally. Children's presence was particularly difficult when significant issues were being discussed, including prognoses, adverse results, and certain medical procedures. Parents felt that such discussions posed a potential threat to their child, particularly when they had not first had an opportunity to discuss information with the physician separately from the child. In contrast, separate meetings enabled parents to absorb information and to convey it to their child at an appropriate time and in a reassuring way. Some parents experienced difficulties in accessing separate meetings with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties parents described could potentially be addressed by extending, beyond the diagnosis period, the practice of sequencing significant information so that it is communicated to parents in separate meetings before being communicated to the child and by periodically exploring with parents what information would be in each child's interests.

Faith and protection: the construction of hope by parents of children with leukemia and their oncologists

Background. Oncologists are criticized for fostering unrealistic hope in patients and families, but criticisms reflect a perspective that is oversimplified and “expert” guidance that is ambiguous or impractical. Our aim was to understand how pediatric oncologists manage parents' hope in practice and to evaluate how they address parents' needs. Methods. Participants were 53 parents and 12 oncologists whom they consulted across six U.K. centers. We audio recorded consultations approximately 1–2, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. Parents were interviewed after each consultation to elicit their perspectives on the consultation and clinical relationship. Transcripts of consultations and interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Results. Parents needed hope in order to function effectively in the face of despair, and all wanted the oncologists to help them be hopeful. Most parents focused hope on the short term. They therefore needed oncologists to be authoritative in taking responsibility for the child's long-term survival while cushioning parents from information about longer-term uncertainties and being positive in providing information about short-term progress. A few parents who could not fully trust their oncologist were unable to hope. Conclusion. Oncologists' pivotal role in sustaining hope was one that parents gave them. Most parents' “faith” in the oncologist allowed them to set aside, rather than deny, their fears about survival while investing their hopes in short-term milestones. Oncologists' behavior generally matched parents' needs, contradicting common criticisms of oncologists. Nevertheless, oncologists need to identify and address the difficulty that some parents have in fully trusting the oncologist and, consequently, being hopeful.

Ibrutinib inhibits platelet integrin αIIbβ3 outside-in signaling and thrombus stability but not adhesion to collagen

OBJECTIVE: Ibrutinib is an irreversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and mantle cell lymphoma that increases the risk of bleeding among patients. Platelets from ibrutinib-treated patients exhibit deficiencies in collagen-evoked signaling in suspension; however, the significance of this observation and how it relates to bleeding risk is unclear, as platelets encounter immobile collagen in vivo. We sought to clarify the effects of ibrutinib on platelet function to better understand the mechanism underlying bleeding risk. APPROACH AND RESULTS: By comparing signaling in suspension and during adhesion to immobilized ligands, we found that the collagen signaling deficiency caused by ibrutinib is milder during adhesion to immobilized collagen. We also found that platelets in whole blood treated with ibrutinib adhered to collagen under arterial shear but formed unstable thrombi, suggesting that the collagen signaling deficiency caused by ibrutinib may not be the predominant cause of bleeding in vivo. However, clot retraction and signaling evoked by platelet adhesion to immobilized fibrinogen were also inhibited by ibrutinib, indicating that integrin αIIbβ3 outside-in signaling is also effected in addition to GPVI signaling. When ibrutinib was combined with the P2Y12 inhibitor, cangrelor, thrombus formation under arterial shear was inhibited additively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that (1) ibrutinib causes GPVI and integrin αIIbβ3 platelet signaling deficiencies that result in formation of unstable thrombi and may contribute toward bleeding observed in vivo and (2) combining ibrutinib with P2Y12 antagonists, which also inhibit thrombus stability, may have a detrimental effect on hemostasis.