Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31182655›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.

Debra J H Mathews, Julia T Rabin, Katharine Quain, Eric Campbell, Deborah Collyar, Fay J Hlubocky, Steven Isakoff, Jeffrey Peppercorn

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Data After Death: Post-Mortem Ethics of Burn Patient Records and Images.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Debra J H MathewsJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA dmathews@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4897-7617
Julia T RabinMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Katharine QuainMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Eric CampbellUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Deborah CollyarPatient Advocate in Research (PAIR), Danville, California, USA.
Fay J HlubockyUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Steven IsakoffMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeffrey PeppercornMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · USPatient Advocate Foundation · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biological Specimen BanksFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleNeoplasmsTissue BanksBioethicsInformed consentTissue banksTissues

Identifiers

PMID31182655
PMCPMC6975958
OpenAlexW2951713336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.