Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens. Donors expressed very positive views regarding tissue donation in general and endorsed the use of their biospecimens in future research across a wide range of contexts. Concerns regarding future uses were limited to for-profit research and research by investigators in other countries. These results support the use of broad consent to store and use biological samples in future research.
BaerA. R.SmithM. L.BendellJ. C. (2011). Donating tissue for research: Patient and provider perspectives. Journal of Oncology Practice, 7, 334-337.
2.
BardillJ.GarrisonN. A. (2015). Naming indigenous concerns, framing considerations for stored biospecimens. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 73-75.
3.
BrownK. M.DrakeB. F.GehlertS.WolfL. E.DuBoisJ.SeoJ.. . . KaphingstK. A. (2016). Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women. Journal of Community Genetics, 7, 41-49.
4.
BurkeW.EvansB. J.JarvikG. P. (2014). Return of results: Ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. American Journal of Medical Genetics Seminars in Medical Genetics166C(1), 105-11.
ChenD. T.RosensteinD. L.MuthappanP.HilsenbeckS. G.MillerF. G.EmanuelE. J.WendlerD. (2005). Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want?Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 652-655.
7.
ChristenhuszG. M.DevriendtK.DierickxK. (2013). To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 248-255.
8.
D’AbramoF.SchildmannJ.VollmannJ. (2015). Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: A review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Medical Ethics, 16, Article 60.
9.
DasguptaI.BollingerJ.MathewsD. J.NeumannN. M.RattaniA.SugarmanJ. (2014). Patients’ attitudes toward the donation of biological materials for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 14, 9-12. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.12.006
10.
De SouzaY. G.GreenspanJ. S. (2013). Biobanking past, present and future: Responsibilities and benefits. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, 27, 303-312. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835c1244
11.
De VriesR. G.TomlinsonT.KimH. M.KrenzC.HaggertyD.RyanK. A.KimS. Y. (2016). Understanding the public’s reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a national survey. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159113. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159113
12.
De VriesR. G.TomlinsonT.KimH. M.KrenzC. D.RyanK. A.LehpamerN.KimS. Y. (2016). The moral concerns of biobank donors: The effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12, Article 3. doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4
13.
EwingA. T.ErbyL. A.BollingerJ.TetteyfioE.Ricks-SantiL. J.KaufmanD. (2015). Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research. BioPreservation and BioBanking, 13, 98-106. doi:10.1089/bio.2014.0032
14.
GarrisonN. A.SatheN. A.AntommariaA. H.HolmI. A.SandersonS. C.SmithM. E.. . . ClaytonE. W. (2016). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genetics in Medicine, 18, 663-671. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.138
15.
GradyC.EcksteinL.BerkmanB.BrockD.Cook-DeeganR.FullertonS. M.. . . KimS. (2015). Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 34-42.
16.
HallM. A.CamachoF.LawlorJ. S.DepuyV.SugarmanJ.WeinfurtK. (2006). Measuring trust in medical researchers. Medical Care, 44, 1048-1053. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000228023.37087.cb
HelftP. R.ChampionV. L.EcklesR.JohnsonC. S.MeslinE. M. (2007). Cancer patients’ attitudes toward future research uses of stored human biological materials. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 15-22. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.15
19.
HillE. M.TurnerE. L.MartinR. M.DonovanJ. L. (2013). “Let’s get the best quality research we can”: Public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: A systematic review and qualitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), Article 72.
20.
HoeyerK.OlofssonB.-O.MjörndalT.LynöeN. (2004). Informed consent and biobanks: A population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32, 224-229.
21.
HullS. C.SharpR. R.BotkinJ. R.BrownM.HughesM.SugarmanJ.. . . WilfondB. S. (2008). Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 62-70. doi:10.1080/15265160802478404
22.
JarvikG. P.AmendolaL. M.BergJ. S.BrothersK.ClaytonE. W.ChungW.. . . GallegoC. J. (2014). Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 94, 818-826.
23.
KaphingstK. A.JanoffJ. M.HarrisL. N.EmmonsK. M. (2006). Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clinical Genetics, 69, 393-398. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00614.x
24.
KaufmanD. J.Murphy-BollingerJ.ScottJ.HudsonK. L. (2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 643-654. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002
25.
KernM. H. (2010). Clinician attitudes and intentions toward participation in a DNA biobank. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University.
26.
KnoppersB. M.Ma’nH. Z.SénécalK. (2015). Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16, 553-559.
27.
LipworthW.MorrellB.IrvineR.KerridgeI. (2009). An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: Rethinking restrictive consent requirements. Journal of Law and Medicine, 17, 119-132.
28.
LoeJ.RobertsonC. T.WinkelmanD. A. (2015). Cascading consent for research on biobank specimens. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 68-70.
29.
LolkemaM. P.Gadellaa-van HooijdonkC. G.BredenoordA. L.KapiteinP.RoachN.CuppenE.. . . VoestE. E. (2013). Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 1842-1848. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2789
30.
LowenthalJ.LipnickS.RaoM.HullS. C. (2012). Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: Harmonizing the approach to informed consent. Stem Cells Translational Medicine, 1, 409-421. doi:10.5966/sctm.2012-0029
31.
MasterZ.NelsonE.MurdochB.CaulfieldT. (2012). Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods, 9, 885-888.
32.
McGuireA. L.CaulfieldT.ChoM. K. (2008). Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 152-156. doi:10.1038/nrg2302
33.
McGuireA. L.GibbsR. A. (2006). Genetics: No longer de-identified. Science, 312, 370-371. doi:10.1126/science.1125339
34.
MurphyJ.ScottJ.KaufmanD.GellerG.LeRoyL.HudsonK. (2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 36-43. doi:10.1080/15265160802513093
35.
National Institutes of Health: All of Us Research Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://allofus.nih.gov/
PentzR. D.BillotL.WendlerD. (2006). Research on stored biological samples: Views of African American and White American cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics: Part A, 140, 733-739. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31154
38.
PlougT.HolmS. (2015). Going beyond the false dichotomy of broad or specific consent: A meta-perspective on participant choice in research using human tissue. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 44-46.
SandersonS. C.BrothersK. B.MercaldoN. D.ClaytonE. W.AntommariaA. H. M.AufoxS. A.. . . HolmI. A. (2017). Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: A large multi-site experimental survey in the US. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 100, 414-427. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021
41.
SandersonS. C.LindermanM. D.SuckielS. A.DiazG. A.ZinbergR. E.FerrymanK.. . . SchadtE. E. (2015). Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: Baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24, 14-20.
42.
SchwartzM. D.RothenbergK.JosephL.BenkendorfJ.LermanC. (2001). Consent to the use of stored DNA for genetics research: A survey of attitudes in the Jewish population. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 98, 336-342.
43.
SiminoffL. A.Wilson-GendersonM.MosavelM.BarkerL.TrginaJ.TrainoH. M. (2017). Confidentiality in biobanking research: A comparison of donor and nondonor families’ understanding of risks. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 21, 171-177. doi:10.1089/gtmb.2016.0407
44.
SimonC. M.L‘HeureuxJ.MurrayJ. C.WinokurP.WeinarG.NewburyE.. . . ZimmermanB. (2011). Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 821-831.
45.
StegmayrB.AsplundK. (2002). Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: A population based study. British Medical Journal, 325(7365), Article 634.
46.
SteinsbekkK. S.MyskjaB. K.SolbergB. (2013). Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem?European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 897-902.
47.
ThielD. B.PlattJ.PlattT.KingS. B.FisherN.SheltonR.KardiaS. L. (2014). Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 18, 26-39.
48.
TomlinsonT. (2013). Respecting donors to biobank research. Hastings Center Report, 43, 41-47. doi:10.1002/hast.115
49.
TomlinsonT.De VriesR.RyanK.KimH. M.LehpamerN.KimS. Y. (2015). Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313, 417-419.
50.
TrinidadS. B.FullertonS. M.BaresJ. M.JarvikG. P.LarsonE. B.BurkeW. (2012). Informed consent in genome-scale research: What do prospective participants think?AJOB Primary Research, 3, 3-11.
51.
Valle-MansillaJ. I.Ruiz-CanelaM.SulmasyD. P. (2010). Patients’ attitudes to informed consent for genomic research with donated samples. Cancer Investigation, 28, 726-734.
52.
VaughtJ. (2016). Biobanking comes of age: The transition to biospecimen science. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 56, 211-228.
53.
VermeulenE.SchmidtM. K.AaronsonN. K.KuenenM.van LeeuwenF. E. (2009). Obtaining “fresh” consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years ago. European Journal of Cancer, 45, 1168-1174. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.022
54.
WangS. S.FridingerF.SheedyK. M.KhouryM. J. (2001). Public attitudes regarding the donation and storage of blood specimens for genetic research. Public Health Genomics, 4, 18-26.
55.
WeinarM. (2014). Introduction to biospecimens. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, 10, 1-4.
56.
WendlerD. (2006). One-time general consent for research on biological samples. British Medical Journal332, Article 544. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7540.544
57.
WendlerD. (2011). Research with biological samples. In EmanuelC. G. E. J.CrouchR. A.LieR. K.MillerF. G.WendlerD. (Eds.), The oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 290-298). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
WendlerD.EmanuelE. (2002). The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think?Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 1457-1462.
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.
