Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Oncology patients overwhelmingly support tissue banking

Authors: Jamie Bryant, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Elizabeth Fradgley, Timothy Regan, Breanne Hobden, Stephen P. Ackland

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Translational biomedical research relies on the availability of human tissue to explore disease aetiology and prognostic factors, with the objective of developing better targeted treatments. The establishment of biobanks poses ongoing ethical considerations in relation to donors. This is a quantitative study exploring medical oncology patients’ preferences for contributing to tissue biobanks.

Methods

The objectives of this study were to explore oncology patients’ preferences about tissue banking, including: 1) willingness to donate; 2) factors influencing donation decisions; 3) preferences about the use of donated tissue including permission systems, data linkage, and communication about research findings to donors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two tertiary oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients were approached by volunteers to complete a touchscreen survey in waiting rooms or while receiving intravenous therapy. Consenting participants completed demographic questions and received up to 12 previously validated items exploring preferences for donating tissue.

Results

224 oncology outpatients participated over a ten month period (69.1 % consent rate; 64.4 % completion rate). Most participants were female (54 %), were a mean age of 62 years, and diagnosed with breast (26 %) and bowel (20 %) cancer. Most participants indicated willingness to donate tissue (84 %) and for their sample to be stored for future use (96 %). Participants preferred a blanket consent approach (71 %), samples to be linked to medical records (62 %) and for general results of the research (79 %) to be provided to them. Factors influencing willingness to donate tissue included personal (85 %) or familial health benefits (88 %) and a sense of duty to future patients (82 %).

Conclusions

The overwhelming majority of oncology patients are willing to participate in a tissue bank, providing some support to explore ‘opt-out’ models of consent. To enhance patient acceptability, tissue banking programs should: (i) consider allowing blanket informed consent as well as opt-in models of consent; (ii) develop protocols allowing feedback of information about samples in line with patient preferences; (iii) provide clear information to potential donors about the benefits arising from donation.
Literature
1.
Grizzle WE, Bell WC, Sexton KC. Issues in collecting, processing and storing human tissues and associated information to support biomedical research. Cancer Biomark. 2011;9(1):531–49.
2.
Riegman PH, Morente MM, Betsou F, de Blasio P, Geary P. Biobanking for better healthcare. Mol Oncol. 2008;2(3):213–22.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Banks E, Herbert N, Mather T, Rogers K, Jorm L. Characteristics of Australian cohort study participants who do and do not take up an additional invitation to join a long-term biobank: The 45 and Up Study. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T, Halldorsdottir I, Chia K-S, Eriksson S, et al. Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(11):1261–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Lewis C, Clotworthy M, Hilton S, Magee C, Robertson MJ, Stubbins LJ, et al. Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):1941–6008.
6.
Braun KL, Tsark JU, Powers A, Croom K, Kim R, Gachupin FC, et al. Cancer patient perceptions about biobanking and preferred timing of consent. Biopreserv Biobank. 2014;12(2):106–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Cornel MC, Knoppers BM, van Leeuwen FE, Aaronson NK. Connective tissue: cancer patients attitudes towards medical research using excised (tumour) tissue. BioSocieties. 2011;6(4):466–86.CrossRef
8.
Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjörndal T, Lynöe N. The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(1):97–00.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Luque JS, Quinn GP, Montel-Ishino FA, Arevalo M, Bynum SA, Noel-Thomas S, et al. Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27(1):91–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Lee CI, Bassett LW, Leng M, Maliski SL, Pezeshki BB, Wells CJ, et al. Patients’ willingness to participate in a breast cancer biobank at screening mammogram. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(3):899–906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Budimir D, Polasek O, Marusić A, Kolcić I, Zemunik T, Boraska V, et al. Ethical aspects of human biobanks: a systematic review. Croat Med J. 2011;52(3):262–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2007;8:343–64.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Rachul C, McGuire A, Caulfield T. Public perceptions and biobanking: What does the research really say? Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology. 2012;6(1):97–100.CrossRef
14.
Soto C, Tarrant C, Pritchard-Jones K, Dixon-Woods M. Consent to tissue banking for research: qualitative study and recommendations. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97(7):632–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
17.
Zika E, Schulte In den Bäumen T, Kaye J, Brand A, Ibarreta D. Sample, data use and protection in biobanking in Europe: legal issues. 2008.
18.
Master Z, Claudio JO, Rachul C, Wang JC, Minden MD, Caulfield T. Cancer patient perceptions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobanking. BMC Med Genomics. 2013;6(1):8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Critchley CR, Nicol D, Otlowski MF, Stranger MJ. Predicting intention to biobank: a national survey. Eur J Public Health. 2010;22(1):139–44.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med. 2008;10(11):831–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Fleming J. Biobanks: Professional, Donor and Public Perceptions of Tissue Banks and the Ethical and Legal Challenges of Consent, Linkage, and the Disclosure of Research Results, in Institute for Molecular Bioscience. Queensland: The University of Queensland; 2007.
22.
Cousins G, McGee H, Ring L, Conroy R, Kay E, Croke DT, et al. Public perceptions of biomedical research: a survey of the general population in Ireland, Psychology Reports. 2005. p. 8.
23.
Kettis-Lindblad O, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG. Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Public Health. 2006;16(4):433–40.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hewitt R, Watson PH, Dhir R, Aamodt R, Thomas G, Mercola D, et al. Timing of consent for the research use of surgically removed tissue. Cancer. 2009;115(1):4–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Oncology patients overwhelmingly support tissue banking
Authors
Jamie Bryant
Rob Sanson-Fisher
Elizabeth Fradgley
Timothy Regan
Breanne Hobden
Stephen P. Ackland
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1416-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Cancer 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Long-term results of chemoradiotherapy for stage II-III thoracic esophageal cancer in a single institution after 2000 -with a focus on comparison of three protocols-

Research article

Liposome encapsulated zoledronate favours M1-like behaviour in murine macrophages cultured with soluble factors from breast cancer cells

Research article

Distribution of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on the cervix in Chinese women: pooled analysis of 19 population based screening studies

Research article

Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with neutrophil and T-cell infiltration and predicts clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma

Study protocol

STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Research article

Phase II trial of selective internal radiation therapy and systemic chemotherapy for liver-predominant metastases from pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits