Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492767›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

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

Jeffrey Peppercorn, Eric Campbell, Steve Isakoff, Nora K Horick, Julia Rabin, Katharine Quain, Lecia V Sequist, Aditya Bardia, Deborah Collyar, Fay Hlubocky and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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
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

11 authors.

Jeffrey PeppercornDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Eric CampbellMongan Institute Health Policy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Steve IsakoffDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nora K HorickMGH Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Julia RabinMongan Institute Health Policy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Katharine QuainDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lecia V SequistDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Aditya BardiaDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Deborah CollyarPatient Advocates in Research.
Fay HlubockySection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, The Cancer Research Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Debra MathewsDepartment of Pediatrics, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOncology 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

methodsWe 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.

resultsAmong 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.

conclusionWhen 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiological Specimen BanksCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBiobankCancer trialsInformed consentPatient surveyResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID31492767
PMCPMC6964122

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.