ArticleThe oncologist2019
Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.
Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data After Death: Post-Mortem Ethics of Burn Patient Records and Images.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Review
- Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Positive association between research competitiveness of Chinese academic hospitals and the scale of their biobanks: A national survey.Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Respect, justice and learning are limited when patients are deidentified data subjects.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Trust and Trade-Offs in Sharing Data for Precision Medicine: A National Survey of Singapore.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- "Who is watching the watchdog?": ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear.The oncologist · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs 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
methodsWe 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.
resultsAcross 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.
conclusionOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.