Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30596322›Full record

ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.

Deborah R Gordon, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Marguerite Robinson, Wesley O Petersen, Jason S Egginton, Kari G Chaffee, Gloria M Petersen, Susan M Wolf, Barbara A Koenig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Deborah R Gordona Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine , University of California, San Francisco.
Carmen Radecki Breitkopfb Department of Health Sciences Research , Mayo Clinic.
Marguerite Robinsonc Biomedical Ethics Research , Mayo Clinic.
Wesley O Petersend Office of Health Disparities Research , Mayo Clinic.
Jason S Eggintone Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery , Mayo Clinic.
Kari G Chaffeeb Department of Health Sciences Research , Mayo Clinic.
Gloria M Petersenb Department of Health Sciences Research , Mayo Clinic.
Susan M Wolff University of Minnesota Law School.
Barbara A Koenigg Program in Bioethics , University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

Tissue CoreP50CA102701 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI BILLADEAU, DANIEL D · 2004 to 2018
$32.7M
Pancreatic Cancer Genetic Epidemiology Consortium (PACGENE)R01CA097075 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2002 to 2012
$15.8M
Disclosing Genomic Incidental Findings in a Cancer Biobank: An ELSI ExperimentR01CA154517 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
Center for Transdisciplinary ELSI Research in Translational GenomicsP20HG007243 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI HARRIS-WAI, JULIE NOEL, KOENIG, BARBARA A. · 2013 to 2016
$958k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA102701NCI NIH HHS R01 CA097075NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154517NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG007243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

methodsPreferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

resultsFifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

conclusionsAlthough additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksEthics, ResearchAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisclosureFamilyFemaleGenetic PrivacyHumansInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMoral ObligationsPancreatic Neoplasmsethics of disclosurefamily communicationgenomicsincidental findingsReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID30596322
PMCPMC6443426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.