Literature DB >> 19549775

Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science.

Lynn G Dressler1.   

Abstract

Although the cancer research community has supported a "nondisclosure" position about the return of individual results to research subjects, new technologies, such as genome wide association studies, will reveal clinically relevant findings, some of which cannot be ignored. What recommendations exist that can guide researchers and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) about this issue? This article summarizes the relevant public documents about the disclosure of individual research results to inform policy development. Four stakeholder groups were selected to make this comparison: federal, professional, advisory, and advocacy groups. Regardless of a group's position on disclosure, there was consensus that if research results were to be disclosed under any condition, the results must be analytically and clinically validated and that the researcher should not make this decision alone, but in conjunction with the IRB. There was no consensus, however, on the specific determinants for disclosure or what constitutes clinical validity. Although sufficient agreement exists to begin developing general guidelines about the process for disclosure of individual research results, the actual determinants with which to guide this decision remain challenging. An alternate framework that addresses the threshold of uncertainty a stakeholder is willing to accept, the positive predictive value of the research finding, and the magnitude of harm of returning results may be more effective to guide decision making. These assessments, along with what is considered useful information, requires the involvement of the research subject community to inform decision-making and move the policy process forward.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19549775     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-3067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  37 in total

1.  The meaning of genetic research results: reflections from individuals with and without a known genetic disorder.

Authors:  R Jean Cadigan; Marsha Michie; Gail Henderson; Arlene M Davis; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research.

Authors:  Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy Downing; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Christian Simon
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-02-21

3.  Sharing individual research results with biospecimen contributors: point.

Authors:  Rihab Yassin; Carol Weil; Nicole Lockhart
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

Authors:  Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 6.  Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions?

Authors:  Susan E Wallace; Alastair Kent
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-05       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 7.  Biobanking residual tissues.

Authors:  Peter H J Riegman; Evert-Ben van Veen
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  Engaging Study Participants in Research Dissemination at a Center for Population Health and Health Disparities.

Authors:  Sarah Knerr; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Marian L Neuhouser; Christopher I Li; Gloria D Coronado; Stephanie M Fullerton; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2016

Review 9.  Genetic susceptibility testing for neurodegenerative diseases: ethical and practice issues.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 11.685

Review 10.  Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (6 of 7): ethical considerations.

Authors:  Maureen Kelley; Craig E Rubens
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.