To investigate the attitudes of patients toward the return of individual research results from scientific research with residual tissue.
Methods and Findings:
We recruited 1319 patients from 6 Dutch hospitals. In total, 673 patients (51% response rate) completed the questionnaire and 146 were interviewed. Based on the questionnaire data, the majority of respondents (92%) wanted to be informed of incidental findings about both a curable (92%) and an incurable (76%) disease. Respondents' wishes to be informed about incidental findings did not vary significantly as a function of patient demographics or type of disease. The interview data show that respondents wished to be informed about incidental findings because they considered it to be normal practice; they expected the information to be of benefit for their health. Information should be provided by their physician. Yet, most respondents (84%) would consent to research even if they would not be informed about incidental findings, primarily because they recognized that there might be practical problems in providing such information, and because they valued scientific research highly.
Conclusions:
We conclude that, while the majority of patients want to be informed about incidental findings, they also recognize that this may be difficult.
BarazzettiG, CavalliS, BenaroyoL, et al. (2017) “Still rather hazy at present”: citizens' and physicians' views on returning results from biobank research using broad consent. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 21:1-7.
3.
BaumanZ (2007) Consuming Life. Polity Press, Cambridge.
4.
BerkmanBE, Chandros HullS, BieseckerLG (2016) Scrutinizing the right not to know. Am J Bioeth, 15:17-19.
BeskowLM, SmolekSJ (2009) Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 4:99-111.
7.
BledsoeMJ (2017) Ethical legal and social issues of biobanking: past, present, and future. Biopreserv Biobank, 15:142-147.
8.
BoeckhoutM, DouglasCM (2015) Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives. Life Sci Soc Policy, 11:7.
9.
BollingerJM, ScottJ, DvoskinR, et al. (2012) Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med, 14:451-457.
10.
BotkinJR, RothwellE, AndersonR, et al. (2014) Public attitudes regarding the use of electronic health information and residual clinical tissues for research. J Community Genet, 5:205-213.
11.
BrothersKB, MorrisonDR, ClaytonEW (2011) Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. Am J Med Genet A, 155A:2982-2990.
12.
BrothersKB, WestbrookMJ, WrightMF, et al. (2013) Patient awareness and approval for an opt-out genomic biorepository. Per Med, 10:349-359.
13.
BunnikEM, VernooijMW (2016) Incidental findings in population imaging revisited. Eur J Epidemiol, 31:1-4.
14.
CasparieM, TieboschAT, BurgerG, et al. (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol, 29:19-24.
15.
CaulfieldT, RachulC, NelsonE (2012) Biobanking, consent, and control: a survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreserv Biobank, 10:433-438.
16.
ClaytonEW (2008) Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA. J Law Med Ethics, 36:286-291, 212.
17.
CollyarDE (2011) Biospecimens and people: a fundamental connection. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2011:41-42.
18.
CornelMC (2013) Crossing the boundary between research and health care: P3G policy statement on return of results from population studies. Eur J Hum Genet, 21:243-244.
19.
Dal-RéR, KatsanisN, KatsanisS, et al. (2014) Managing incidental genomic findings in clinical trials: fulfillment of the principle of justice. PloS Med, 11:e1001584.
20.
EmkeI (2002) Patients in the new economy: the “sick role” in a time of economic discipline. Animus, 7:81-93.
21.
European Commission (2012) Biobanks for Europe. A Challenge for Governance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
22.
FacioFM, EidemH, FisherT, et al. (2013) Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet, 21:261-265.
GordonES, GriffinG, WawakL, et al. (2012) “It's not like judgment day”: public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. J Genet Couns, 21:423-432.
25.
GottweisH, GaskellG, StarkbaumJ (2011) Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet, 12:738-739.
26.
GroismanIJ, GodardB (2016) Impact of next generation sequencing on the organization and funding of returning research results: survey on Canadian Research Ethics Boards Members. PLoS One, 11:e0154965.
27.
HartzSM, OlfsonE, CulverhouseR, et al. (2015) Return of individual genetic results in a high-risk sample: enthusiasm and positive behavioral change. Genet Med, 17:374-379.
28.
HaukkalaA, KujalaE, AlhaP, et al. (2013) The return of unexpected research results in a biobank study and referral to health care for heritable long QT syndrome. Public Health Genomics, 16:241-250.
29.
HazinR, BrothersKB, MalinBA, et al. (2013) Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet Med, 15:810-816.
30.
HelgessonG (2014) Autonomy, the right not to know, and the right to know personal research results: what rights are there, and who should decide about exceptions?. J Law Med Ethics, 42:28-37.
31.
HobbsA, StarkbaumJ, GottweisU, et al. (2012) The privacy-reciprocity connection in biobanking: comparing German with UK strategies. Public Health Genomics, 15:272-284.
32.
HofmannB (2016) Incidental findings of uncertain significance: to know or not to know—that is not the question. BMC Med Ethics, 17:13.
33.
KarlsonEW, BoutinNT, HoffnagleAG, et al. (2016) Building the partners healthcare biobank at partners personalized medicine: informed consent, return of research results, recruitment lessons and operational considerations. J Pers Med, 6:2.
34.
KayeJ (2012) Embedding biobanks as tools for personalised medicine. Nor Epidemiol, 21:169-175.
35.
KnoppersBM (2014) From the right to know to the right not to know. J Law Med Ethics, 42:6-10.
36.
KnoppersBM, DeschenesM, ZawatiMH, et al. (2013) Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings policy statement. Eur J Hum Genet, 21:245-247.
37.
KnoppersBM, LabergeC (2009) Return of “accurate” and “actionable” results: yes!. Am J Bioeth, 9:107-109.
38.
KulloIJ, HaddadR, ProwsCA, et al. (2014) Return of results in the genomic medicine projects of the eMERGE network. Front Genet, 5:50.
39.
KwonJM, SteinerRD (2011) “I'm fine; I'm just waiting for my disease”: the new and growing class of presymptomatic patients. Neurology, 77:522-523.
40.
LantosJD (1999) The “inclusion benefit” in clinical trials. J Pediatr, 134:130-131.
41.
LockhartNC, YassinR, WeilCJ, e al. (2012) Intersection of biobanking and clinical care: should discrepant diagnoses and pathological findings be returned to research participants?. Genet Med, 14:417-423.
42.
LuptonD (2012) M-health and health promotion: the digital cyborg and surveillance society. Soc Theory Health, 10:229-244.
43.
MenezesP, MillerWC, WohlDA, et al. (2011) Does HAART efficacy translate to effectiveness? Evidence for a trial effect. PLoS One, 6:e21824.
44.
MeulenkampTM, GeversSK, BovenbergJA, et al. (2010) Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?. Am J Med Genet A, 152A:2482-2492.
45.
MillerFA, GiacominiM, AhernC, et al. (2008) When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results. BMC Med Ethics, 9:4.
46.
MitchellD, GeisslerJ, Parry-JonesA, et al. (2015) Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem, 1:4.
OosterhuisJW, CoeberghJW, van VeenEB (2003) Tumour banks: well-guarded treasures in the interest of patients. Nat Rev Cancer, 3:73-77.
50.
OverbeekLI, ArkemaJM, HofhuisEH (2012) The value of the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Ned Tijdschr Oncol, 9:104-110.
RebersS, VermeulenE, BrandenburgAP, et al. (2016) A randomised controlled trial of consent procedures for the use of residual tissues for medical research: preferences of and implications for patients, research and clinical practice. PLoS One, 11:e0152509.
53.
RichardsonHS, BelskyL (2004) The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hastings Cent Rep, 34:25-33.
RiegmanPH, van VeenEB (2011) Biobanking residual tissues. Hum Genet, 130:357-368.
56.
ScottCT, CaulfieldT, BorgeltE, et al. (2012) Personal medicine—the new banking crisis. Nat Biotechnol, 30:141-147.
57.
TaborHK, BamshadMJ (2012) Unanticipated results from exome sequencing/whole genome sequencing: the sky won't fall. Am J Med Genet A, 158:2643-2644.
58.
TerrySF (2017) Turning toward participants in biobanking. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 21:132-133.
59.
TimmermansS, BuchbinderM (2010) Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era. J Health Soc Behav, 51:408-423.
60.
van VeenEB, RiegmanPH, DinjensWN, et al. (2006) TuBaFrost 3: regulatory and ethical issues on the exchange of residual tissue for research across Europe. Eur J Cancer, 42:2914-2923.
61.
VermeulenE, SchmidtMK, AaronsonNK, et al. (2009) A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples. Br J Cancer, 101:1505-1512.
62.
VermeulenE, SchmidtMK, CornelMC, et al. (2011) Connective tissue. Cancer patients' attitudes towards medical research using excised (tumour) tissue. BioSocieties, 6:466-486.
63.
VibergJ, HanssonMG, LangenskioldS, et al. (2014) Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks. Eur J Hum Genet, 22:437-441.
64.
WolfSM, CrockBN, Van NessB, et al. (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med, 14:361-384.
65.
YassinR, WeilC, LockhartN (2012) Sharing individual research results with biospecimen contributors: point. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 21:256-259.
66.
YoungMA, HerlihyA, MitchellG, et al. (2013) The attitudes of people with sarcoma and their family towards genomics and incidental information arising from genetic research. Clin Sarcoma Res, 3:11.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
