Literature DB >> 31492767

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

Jeffrey Peppercorn1,2, Eric Campbell3,2, Steve Isakoff1,2, Nora K Horick4, Julia Rabin3, Katharine Quain1, Lecia V Sequist1,2, Aditya Bardia1,2, Deborah Collyar5, Fay Hlubocky6, Debra Mathews7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Oncology research increasingly involves biospecimen collection and data sharing. Ethical challenges emerge when researchers seek to use archived biospecimens for purposes that were not well defined in the original informed consent document (ICD). We sought to inform ongoing policy debates by assessing patient views on these issues.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional self-administered survey to patients with cancer at an academic medical center. Survey questions addressed attitudes toward cancer research, willingness to donate biospecimens, expectations regarding use of biospecimens, and preferences regarding specific ethical dilemmas.
RESULTS: Among 240 participants (response rate 69%), virtually all (94%) indicated willingness to donate tissue for research. Most participants (86%) expected that donated tissue would be used for any research deemed scientifically important, and virtually all (94%) expected that the privacy of their health information would be protected. Broad use of stored biospecimens and data sharing with other researchers increased willingness to donate tissue. For three scenarios in which specific consent for proposed biobank research was unclear within the ICD, a majority of patient's favored allowing the research to proceed: 76% to study a different cancer, 88% to study both inherited (germline) and tumor specific (somatic) mutations, and 70% to permit data sharing. A substantial minority believed that research using stored biospecimens should only proceed with specific consent.
CONCLUSION: When debates arise over appropriate use of archived biospecimens, the interests of the research participants in seeing productive use of their blood or tissue should be considered, in addition to addressing concerns about potential risks and lack of specific consent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This survey evaluated views of patients with cancer regarding the permissible use of stored biospecimens from cancer trials when modern scientific methods are not well described in the original informed consent document. The vast majority of patients support translational research and expect that any biospecimens they donate will be used to advance knowledge. When researchers, policy makers, and those charged with research oversight debate use of stored biospecimens, it is important to recognize that research participants have an interest in productive use of their blood, tissue, or data, in addition to considerations of risks and the adequacy of documented consent. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobank; Cancer trials; Informed consent; Patient survey; Research ethics

Year:  2019        PMID: 31492767      PMCID: PMC6964122          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0365

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


  34 in total

1.  Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century.

Authors:  Kathy L Hudson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Research participants' attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Julie C Sapp; Katie Lewis; Tatiane Yanes; Flavia M Facio; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources.

Authors:  Dianne Nicol; Christine Critchley; Rebekah McWhirter; Tess Whitton
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; William T Barry; Rachel Mills; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Laura Svetkey; Jennifer Sullivan; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2013-02-13

Review 5.  Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.

Authors:  Flavio D'Abramo; Jan Schildmann; Jochen Vollmann
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate.

Authors:  Raymond G De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; H Myra Kim; Chris D Krenz; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2016-03-11

Review 7.  Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Blake Murdoch
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  The role of race and trust in tissue/blood donation for genetic research.

Authors:  Jada Bussey-Jones; Joanne Garrett; Gail Henderson; Mairead Moloney; Connie Blumenthal; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays.

Authors:  Nils Homer; Szabolcs Szelinger; Margot Redman; David Duggan; Waibhav Tembe; Jill Muehling; John V Pearson; Dietrich A Stephan; Stanley F Nelson; David W Craig
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-08-29       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

Authors:  Nanibaa' A Garrison; Nila A Sathe; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Melissa L McPheeters; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  "My Research Is Their Business, but I'm Not Their Business": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Commercialization of Precision Oncology Data.

Authors:  Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Chris D Krenz; Collin Brummel; J Chad Brenner; Carol R Bradford; Andrew G Shuman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 5.837

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.