CONTEXT: Research Medical Donation (RMD), which entails collecting human tissue within hours after death, benefits cancer research but data are limited regarding barriers institutions face accruing patients to RMD programs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to generate stakeholder perspectives to best inform the complex RMD process, which includes communicating with patients and their proxies and procuring tissue in a timely manner, all the while respecting end-of-life care sensitivities. METHODS: We explored perceived core needs and challenges of RMD by engaging stakeholders (cancer clinicians, patients, and their caregivers) in eight teleconference focus groups. Breast, pancreatic, and lung cancer clinicians comprised two groups. Each cancer separately had two groups for patients and their caregivers combined. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts included identifying and reaching group consensus on transcript themes and establishing agreement on consensus templates to identify primary common and divergent themes. RESULTS: A total of 45 people (13 clinicians, 24 patients, eight caregivers) participated in the groups. The themes identified were as follows: 1) clinicians and patients had limited previous knowledge about RMD; 2) RMD was perceived to mainly benefit research; 3) logistical and privacy questions arose; 4) introducing RMD was deemed sensitive, with patient-specific timing; 5) rare and/or virulent cancers appeared associated with willingness to participate in RMD. CONCLUSION: Patients, families, and cancer clinicians have generally low knowledge of RMD but, upon learning about it, deem it valuable for scientific advancement (particularly for rare and virulent cancers), necessary to be carried out with individualized sensitivity to end-of-life issues, and through training programs with involved clinical staff.
CONTEXT: Research Medical Donation (RMD), which entails collecting human tissue within hours after death, benefits cancer research but data are limited regarding barriers institutions face accruing patients to RMD programs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to generate stakeholder perspectives to best inform the complex RMD process, which includes communicating with patients and their proxies and procuring tissue in a timely manner, all the while respecting end-of-life care sensitivities. METHODS: We explored perceived core needs and challenges of RMD by engaging stakeholders (cancer clinicians, patients, and their caregivers) in eight teleconference focus groups. Breast, pancreatic, and lung cancer clinicians comprised two groups. Each cancer separately had two groups for patients and their caregivers combined. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts included identifying and reaching group consensus on transcript themes and establishing agreement on consensus templates to identify primary common and divergent themes. RESULTS: A total of 45 people (13 clinicians, 24 patients, eight caregivers) participated in the groups. The themes identified were as follows: 1) clinicians and patients had limited previous knowledge about RMD; 2) RMD was perceived to mainly benefit research; 3) logistical and privacy questions arose; 4) introducing RMD was deemed sensitive, with patient-specific timing; 5) rare and/or virulent cancers appeared associated with willingness to participate in RMD. CONCLUSION:Patients, families, and cancer clinicians have generally low knowledge of RMD but, upon learning about it, deem it valuable for scientific advancement (particularly for rare and virulent cancers), necessary to be carried out with individualized sensitivity to end-of-life issues, and through training programs with involved clinical staff.
Authors: C M Hulette; K A Welsh-Bohmer; B Crain; M H Szymanski; N O Sinclaire; A D Roses Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Erlinda E Embuscado; Daniel Laheru; Francesca Ricci; Ki Jung Yun; Sten de Boom Witzel; Allison Seigel; Katie Flickinger; Manuel Hidalgo; G Steven Bova; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Jennifer L Alabran; Jody E Hooper; Melissa Hill; Sandra E Smith; Kimberlee K Spady; Lara E Davis; Lauren S Peterson; Suman Malempati; Christopher W Ryan; Rae Acosta; Sheri L Spunt; Charles Keller Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Thomas G Beach; Charles H Adler; Lucia I Sue; Geidy Serrano; Holly A Shill; Douglas G Walker; LihFen Lue; Alex E Roher; Brittany N Dugger; Chera Maarouf; Alex C Birdsill; Anthony Intorcia; Megan Saxon-Labelle; Joel Pullen; Alexander Scroggins; Jessica Filon; Sarah Scott; Brittany Hoffman; Angelica Garcia; John N Caviness; Joseph G Hentz; Erika Driver-Dunckley; Sandra A Jacobson; Kathryn J Davis; Christine M Belden; Kathy E Long; Michael Malek-Ahmadi; Jessica J Powell; Lisa D Gale; Lisa R Nicholson; Richard J Caselli; Bryan K Woodruff; Steven Z Rapscak; Geoffrey L Ahern; Jiong Shi; Anna D Burke; Eric M Reiman; Marwan N Sabbagh Journal: Neuropathology Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 1.906
Authors: Michael J Overman; Janhavi Modak; Scott Kopetz; Ravi Murthy; James C Yao; Marshall E Hicks; James L Abbruzzese; Alda L Tam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew B Schabath; Jessica McIntyre; Christie Pratt; Luis E Gonzalez; Teresita Munoz-Antonia; Eric B Haura; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Rebecca D Pentz; Teresita Muñoz-Antonia; Theresa A Boyle; Matthew B Schabath; Christie L Pratt; Andrea Shaffer; Luisa F Duarte; Meghan Bowman-Curci; Scott J Antonia; Alberto A Chiappori; Benjamin C Creelan; Jhanelle E Gray; Charles C Williams; Eric B Haura Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-11-28