Samuel C Allen1, Margie D Dixon2, Jeffrey M Switchenko1,2,3, Rebecca D Pentz1,2. 1. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biobank funding is unstable and biobank administrators are concerned about loss of funding and subsequent biobank closure. Nevertheless, only a minority of biobanks have policies regarding the distribution or destruction of tissue if the biobank were to close. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to report on the preferences of oncology biospecimen donors regarding the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. METHODS: A total of 98 biospecimen donors who were diagnosed with cancer at the Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital or the Winship Cancer Institute were interviewed concerning their preferences for the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. RESULTS: The majority of biospecimen donors who expressed a preference (62 of 83 donors; 75%) wanted their biological materials transferred to another biobank, specifically an academic bank or a national bank. The most unacceptable options for the handling of tissue were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank (39 of 98 donors; 40%) or a biobank based outside of the United States (31 of 98 donors; 32%). Nonwhite participants were more likely to view the transfer of their tissue to a for-profit/pharmaceutical tissue bank, international tissue bank, or a national tissue bank as unacceptable compared with white participants. CONCLUSIONS: According to these biospecimen donors, the most acceptable options for the handling of biospecimens after biobank closure were transfer to an academic or national bank. The most objectionable options were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank or a biobank based outside of the United States. These findings can be used as the basis for educational interventions directed at the public and can inform the policies of biobanks that serve oncology research. Cancer 2017;123:4648-4652.
BACKGROUND: Biobank funding is unstable and biobank administrators are concerned about loss of funding and subsequent biobank closure. Nevertheless, only a minority of biobanks have policies regarding the distribution or destruction of tissue if the biobank were to close. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to report on the preferences of oncology biospecimen donors regarding the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. METHODS: A total of 98 biospecimen donors who were diagnosed with cancer at the Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital or the Winship Cancer Institute were interviewed concerning their preferences for the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure. RESULTS: The majority of biospecimen donors who expressed a preference (62 of 83 donors; 75%) wanted their biological materials transferred to another biobank, specifically an academic bank or a national bank. The most unacceptable options for the handling of tissue were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank (39 of 98 donors; 40%) or a biobank based outside of the United States (31 of 98 donors; 32%). Nonwhite participants were more likely to view the transfer of their tissue to a for-profit/pharmaceutical tissue bank, international tissue bank, or a national tissue bank as unacceptable compared with white participants. CONCLUSIONS: According to these biospecimen donors, the most acceptable options for the handling of biospecimens after biobank closure were transfer to an academic or national bank. The most objectionable options were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank or a biobank based outside of the United States. These findings can be used as the basis for educational interventions directed at the public and can inform the policies of biobanks that serve oncology research. Cancer 2017;123:4648-4652.
Authors: Paul R Helft; Victoria L Champion; Rachael Eckles; Cynthia S Johnson; Eric M Meslin Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.742