[The Nice CHU biobank experience to collect patients' informed consent for research context (2004-2009)].

Over the last 10 years, significant financial support from the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa), the Ministry of Health (DGOS), and the Health and Research National Institute (Inserm) helped biobanks--of which tumour banks represent a prominent example of hospital-based infrastructures--to improve their operations, and in some instances to adopt the rules of Biological Ressource Centers as defined by OECD. Nowadays, the use of biological samples of human origin is strictly subordinated to regulations that integrate bioethical principles. However, in spite of the establishment of these regulations, requirement to obtain an authorisation and/or to register the biological collections with the Ministry of Research, many uncertainties persist. While French regulations mandate that samples can be used for research as long as patients did not oppose to such use, many biobank curators face practical and theoretical issues when establishing a Material Transfer Agreement with scientists, due to the lack of harmonization between national regulations--particularly due to a different perception of privacy and free will in anglo-american and other countries--and different demands on the side of private industry or editorial boards of scientific journals. The goal of this article is (1) to describe the procedure followed to collect patients' informed consent at the Biobank of CHU de Nice and (2) to assess the number of obtained consents in comparison to the number of collected samples between 01/09/2004 and 31/12/2009, the number of consents obtained before or after collecting the samples, and the number of patients' refusal to collect their biological resources. This balance-sheet is settled for the three major collections (thoracic, thyroid and head and neck tissues) from the Biobank of CHU de Nice. Results show that 88 % of consents were obtained during this period (82 % in a prospective manner and 6 % in a retrospective manner). Refusal was notified by writing in nine cases only. The percentage of consents varies slightly according to the collection involved and is stable from 2004 to 2009. Overall, our procedure is quite efficient at obtaining informed consents from a majority of patients for whom the tumour bank stores biological samples. This situation provides optimal conditions for the use of collected samples in the context of national and international research projects.