Literature DB >> 31182655

Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.

Debra J H Mathews1, Julia T Rabin2, Katharine Quain2, Eric Campbell3, Deborah Collyar4, Fay J Hlubocky5, Steven Isakoff2, Jeffrey Peppercorn2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As scientific techniques evolve, historical informed consent forms may inadequately address modern research proposals, leading to ethical questions regarding research with archived biospecimens. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups among patients with cancer recruited from Massachusetts General Hospital to explore views on medical research, biobanking, and scenarios based on real biospecimen research dilemmas. Our multidisciplinary team developed a structured focus group guide, and all groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded for themes by two independent investigators using NVivo software.
RESULTS: Across five focus groups with 21 participants, we found that most participants were supportive of biobanks and use of their own tissue to advance scientific knowledge. Many favor allowing research beyond the scope of the original consent to proceed if recontact is impossible. However, participants were not comfortable speaking for other patients who may oppose research beyond the original consent. This was viewed as a potential violation of participants' rights or interests. Participants were also concerned with a "slippery slope" and potential scientific abuse if research were permitted without adherence to original consent. There was strong support for recontact and reconsent when possible and for the concept of broad consent at the time of tissue collection.
CONCLUSION: Our participants support use of their tissue to advance research and generally support any productive scientific approach. However, in the absence of broad initial consent, when recontact is impossible, a case-by-case decision must be made regarding a proposal's potential benefits and harms. Many participants support broad use of their tissue, but a substantial minority object to use beyond the original consent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For prospective studies collecting tissue for future research, investigators should consider seeking broad consent, to allow for evolution of research questions and methods. For studies using previously collected tissues, researchers should attempt recontact and reconsent for research aims or methods beyond the scope of the original consent. When reconsent is not possible, a case-by-case decision must be made, weighing the scientific value of the biobank, potential benefits of the proposed research, and the likelihood and nature of risks to participants and their welfare interests. This study's data suggest that many participants support broad use of their tissue and prefer science to move forward. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics; Informed consent; Tissue banks; Tissues

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31182655      PMCID: PMC6975958          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  17 in total

1.  "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose.

Authors:  Carlo Petrini
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.

Authors:  Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples.

Authors:  Gert Helgesson; Joakim Dillner; Joyce Carlson; Claus R Bartram; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  Patients' attitudes toward the donation of biological materials for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Ishan Dasgupta; Juli Bollinger; Debra J H Mathews; Neil M Neumann; Abbas Rattani; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 24.633

5.  Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2017-01-19

6.  Ethical aspects of participation in the database of genotypes and phenotypes of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B Experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peppercorn; Iuliana Shapira; Teressa Deshields; Deanna Kroetz; Paula Friedman; Patricia Spears; Deborah E Collyar; Lawrence N Shulman; Lynn Dressler; Monica M Bertagnolli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Opt-out plus, the patients' choice: preferences of cancer patients concerning information and consent regimen for future research with biological samples archived in the context of treatment.

Authors:  E Vermeulen; M K Schmidt; N K Aaronson; M Kuenen; P van der Valk; C Sietses; P van den Tol; F E van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients.

Authors:  Rebecca D Pentz; Laurent Billot; David Wendler
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking.

Authors:  Yann Joly; Gratien Dalpé; Derek So; Stanislav Birko
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peppercorn; Eric Campbell; Steve Isakoff; Nora K Horick; Julia Rabin; Katharine Quain; Lecia V Sequist; Aditya Bardia; Deborah Collyar; Fay Hlubocky; Debra Mathews
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-09-06

2.  Respect, justice and learning are limited when patients are deidentified data subjects.

Authors:  Marielle S Gross; Amelia J Hood; Joshua C Rubin; Robert C Miller
Journal:  Learn Health Syst       Date:  2022-03-04

3.  "Who is watching the watchdog?": ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore.

Authors:  Tamra Lysaght; Angela Ballantyne; Vicki Xafis; Serene Ong; Gerald Owen Schaefer; Jeffrey Min Than Ling; Ainsley J Newson; Ing Wei Khor; E Shyong Tai
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.