Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers

Ethical, Legal, and Practical Concerns Surrounding the Implemention of New Forms of Consent for Health Data Research: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

In Europe, within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation, more and more digital infrastructures are created to allow for large-scale access to patients' health data and their use for research. When the research is performed on the basis of patient consent, traditional study-specific consent appears too cumbersome for many researchers. Alternative models of consent are currently being discussed and introduced in different contexts.

OBJECTIVE

This study explores stakeholder perspectives on ethical, legal, and practical concerns regarding models of consent for health data research at German university medical centers.

METHODS

Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted with medical researchers at German university medical centers, health IT specialists, data protection officers, and patient representatives. The interviews were analyzed using a software-supported structuring qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Stakeholders regarded broad consent to be only marginally less laborious to implement and manage than tiered consent. Patient representatives favored specific consent, with tiered consent as a possible alternative. All stakeholders lamented that information material was difficult to understand. Oral information and videos were mentioned as a means of improvement. Patient representatives doubted that researchers had a sufficient degree of data security expertise to act as sole information providers. They were afraid of undue pressure if obtaining health data research consent were part of medical appointments. IT specialists and other stakeholders regarded the withdrawal of consent to be a major challenge and called for digital consent management solutions. On the one hand, the transfer of health data to non-European countries and for-profit organizations is seen as a necessity for research. On the other hand, there are data security concerns with regard to these actors. Research without consent is legally possible under certain conditions but deemed problematic by all stakeholder groups, albeit for differing reasons and to different degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

More efforts should be made to determine which options of choice should be included in health data research consent. Digital tools could improve patient information and facilitate consent management. A unified and strict regulation for research without consent is required at the national and European Union level. Obtaining consent for health data research should be independent of medical appointments, and additional personnel should be trained in data security to provide information on health data research.

Assessing Decisional Regret Among Biobank Sample Donors

Background: Large biobanks that link biological specimens with specimen donors' health histories are a critical tool for precision medicine, and many health care institutions have invested significant resources in setting up and building up large collections for this purpose. As biobanks require consented participation from thousands of individual donors, much research has focused on the values and preferences of new and prospective donors who are actively contemplating an invitation to participate in the collection. Few studies, however, have focused on participants' opinions about their biobank participation in the months and years following enrollment. Methods: We conducted a survey in a large, established biobank and evaluated participants' levels of decisional regret regarding their decision to enroll in the biobank. Results: We found very low levels of decisional regret among established biobank participants. Multivariable regression analysis found that age, length of time in the biobank, lower educational attainment, inadequate health literacy, and previous invitations to research participation were all significant predictors of elevated regret. Discussion: Among those with elevated regret, several demographic factors may point to elevated likelihood of decisional regret. More research is needed to identify factors associated with long-term satisfaction with biobank participation and with elevated risk of regret and/or withdrawal from the collection.

Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Surrounding Biospecimen Research Conducted or Supported in the USA

Rapid and dramatic advances in molecular sequencing technology, as well as medical discoveries from genome-wide association and other precision medicine studies, have highlighted the longstanding ethical and legal challenges research biobanks consistently face. Whose authority is needed to conduct research with excised tissue, and how that authority may be exercised with respect and transparency, are central questions. This review article explores how scholars have addressed ethical and legal controversies such as the proper breadth and scope of consent for collection and future research use of biological specimens and data, the importance of disclosing individual research results and secondary findings, and collecting cadaver tissue from deceased persons. This article focuses on the legal and regulatory environment for conducting and/or supporting biospecimen research in the United States of America. It takes the position that proper biobank governance strategies, which ensure accountability and model respect toward biospecimen contributors, as well as transparency in communications between participants and researchers, reduce the likelihood of downstream legal disputes.

Research based on existing clinical data and biospecimens: a systematic study of patients' opinions

Background

The aim of the present survey was to investigate newly discharged hospital patients’ opinions on secondary use of their hospital data and biospecimens within the context of health research in general and, more specifically, on genetic research, data sharing across borders and cooperation with the health industry.

Methods

A paper questionnaire was sent to 1049 consecutive newly discharged hospital patients.

Results

The vast majority of the respondents preferred to be informed (passive consent) or to receive no notification at all for secondary research on their health data and biospecimens (88% and 91% for data and biospecimens respectively). The rest wanted to be asked for active consent. The same trend applied for the other aspects also. 81% of respondents were positive towards genetic research without active consent. 95% were positive towards cooperating with the health industry, and 90% were positive towards data sharing.

Conclusions

These results suggest that hospital patients generally are very positive to secondary research and support the concept of opting out rather than opting in.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00799-4.

Radiotherapy biobanking: current landscape, opportunities, challenges, and future aspirations

Half of all cancer patients receive radiotherapy, which makes a substantial contribution to their long-term disease control/cure. There are significant inter-patient differences in response, both in terms of efficacy and toxicity (frequently delayed onset) which are difficult to predict. With the introduction of technological improvements (e.g. stereotactic body radiotherapy and proton therapy) and development of combination therapies (e.g. radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition), predictive biomarkers are needed even more. Whilst genomic studies have contributed significantly to predictions of response to anticancer therapy, there is no doubt that more information can be gathered from patient tissue samples. Patients are willing to donate their tissues to biobanks and wish them to be used as widely as possible for high-quality research. We report here a survey of the current practices in the UK from several groups collecting material from patients in radiotherapy trials and have identified barriers to collecting and sharing data and samples. We believe the current situation represents a significant missed opportunity to improve the personalisation of radiotherapy. We propose a greater involvement of patients and/or their advocates, a standardisation of the patient information leaflet, consent form content and data set, with easy linkage to clinical data, which would facilitate widespread sample and data discovery and availability to other researchers. The greater sharing of data and samples, nationally and internationally, would facilitate robust multicentre studies and avoid duplication of effort.

An Integrated, Scalable, Electronic Video Consent Process to Power Precision Health Research: Large, Population-Based, Cohort Implementation and Scalability Study

BACKGROUND

Obtaining explicit consent from patients to use their remnant biological samples and deidentified clinical data for research is essential for advancing precision medicine.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the operational implementation and scalability of an electronic universal consent process that was used to power an institutional precision health biobank across a large academic health system.

METHODS

The University of California, Los Angeles, implemented the use of innovative electronic consent videos as the primary recruitment tool for precision health research. The consent videos targeted patients aged ≥18 years across ambulatory clinical laboratories, perioperative settings, and hospital settings. Each of these major areas had slightly different workflows and patient populations. Sociodemographic information, comorbidity data, health utilization data (ambulatory visits, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions), and consent decision data were collected.

RESULTS

The consenting approach proved scalable across 22 clinical sites (hospital and ambulatory settings). Over 40,000 participants completed the consent process at a rate of 800 to 1000 patients per week over a 2-year time period. Participants were representative of the adult University of California, Los Angeles, Health population. The opt-in rates in the perioperative (16,500/22,519, 73.3%) and ambulatory clinics (2308/3390, 68.1%) were higher than those in clinical laboratories (7506/14,235, 52.7%; P<.001). Patients with higher medical acuity were more likely to opt in. The multivariate analyses showed that African American (odds ratio [OR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.58; P<.001), Asian (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.77; P<.001), and multiple-race populations (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77; P<.001) were less likely to participate than White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the few large-scale, electronic video-based consent implementation programs that reports a 65.5% (26,314/40,144) average overall opt-in rate across a large academic health system. This rate is higher than those previously reported for email (3.6%) and electronic biobank (50%) informed consent rates. This study demonstrates a scalable recruitment approach for population health research.

Biobank Participants' Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks

Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.

The Attitude of Patients from a Romanian Tertiary Cardiology Center Regarding Participation in Biomarker-Based Clinical Trials

Background and Objectives: biomarker-based studies are the cornerstone of precision medicine, providing key data for tailored medical care. Enrollment of the planned number of patients is a critical determinant of a successful clinical trial. Moreover, for inclusive medical care, patients from different socio-demographic backgrounds must be recruited. Still, a significant number of trials fail to reach these prerequisites. Designing the informed consent forms based on the patients’ feedback could optimize accrual. We aimed to explore the attitudes of patients from a Romanian tertiary cardiology center towards participation in biomarker-based clinical trials. Materials and Methods: three hundred forty inpatients were interviewed based on a semi-structured questionnaire which included four sections: demographics, personal medical history, attitudes and trust. Results: Roughly, 62.5% of the respondents were interested in enrolling, while altruistic reasons were the most frequently expressed. Clear exposure of the possible risks was most valued (37.78%), followed by the possibility of directly communicating with the research team (23.78%). The most frequently chosen answer by acutely ill patients was improvement of their health, whereas chronically ill individuals indicated the possibility of withdrawal without affecting the quality of medical care. Importantly, the participation rate could be improved if the invitation to enrollment were made by both the current physician and the study coordinator (p = 0.0001). The level of trust in researchers was high in more than 50% of the respondents, and was correlated with therapeutic compliance and with the desire to join a biomarker study. Conclusions: the information gained will facilitate a tailored approach to patient enrollment in future biomarker-based studies in our clinic.

The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine research depends upon recruiting large and diverse participant cohorts to provide genetic, environmental, and lifestyle data. How prospective participants react to information about this research, including depictions of uncertainty, is not well understood.

PURPOSE

The current study examined public responses to precision medicine research, focusing on reactions toward (a) uncertainty about the scientific impact of sharing data for research, and (b) uncertainty about the privacy, security, or intended uses of participant data.

METHODS

U.S. adults (N = 674; 51.9% male; 50% non-Hispanic white; Mage = 42.23) participated in an online experimental survey. Participants read a manipulated news article about precision medicine research that conveyed either certainty or uncertainty of each type (scientific, data). Participants then rated their attitudes toward the research, trust in the researchers, and willingness to join a cohort. We tested direct and mediated paths between message condition and outcomes and examined individual characteristics as moderators.

RESULTS

Overall attitudes were positive and a majority of participants (65%) reported being somewhat or very likely to participate in precision medicine research if invited. Conveying uncertainty of either type had no overall main effect on outcomes. Instead, those who reported perceiving greater uncertainty had lower attitudes, trust, and willingness to join, while those with more tolerance for uncertainty, support for science, and scientific understanding responded favorably to the scientific uncertainty disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest responses to precision medicine research uncertainty are nuanced and that successful cohort enrollment may be well-supported by a transparent approach to communicating with prospective participants.

Comparative analysis of regulatory framework on biobanking to inform policymakers in Central America and the Dominican Republic

Background.  The clinical and scientific importance of biobanks has been highlighted.  Ethical governance and regulatory oversight for biobanks should be in place to preserve and promote ethical and responsible conduct of research. Methods. This is an analytical documentary study of the regulatory scope concerning biobanks in Central America and the Dominican Republic. From the International Compilation of Human Research Standards 2020 edition of the Office of Human Research Protection Department of Health and Human Services of the United States of America identified the existing guidelines applicable to human research in each of the eight SICA member countries. Regulatory aspects searched for and the analysis was based on the recommendations set forth in Guideline 11 on the collection, storage, and use of biological materials and related data in the International Ethical Guidelines for Research Related to Human Health. Results. There is a lack of specific guidelines for the collection, use, and storage of human biological materials for research purposes, and the creation of biobanks in the countries been studied. No country in Central America and the Dominican Republic region has specific regulations for the creation of biobanks for research purposes. The term "biobank" was not found in the revised regulations. However, there are good examples of ethical governance of research in general in the region been Costa Rica, Panamá, and Guatemala examples of advances towards this direction. Conclusions. There is a need to move forward the governance and regulatory framework of biobanks in Central America and the Dominican which can be seen as an opportunity for international cooperation and regulatory collaborative agenda within this region.

Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding

Biobank participants often do not understand much of the information they are provided as part of the informed consent process, despite numerous attempts at simplifying consent forms and improving their readability. We report the first assessment of biobank enrollees' comprehension under an "integrated consent" process, where patients were asked to enroll in a research biobank as part of their normal healthcare experience. A number of healthcare systems have implemented similar integrated consent processes for biobanking, but it is unknown how much patients understand after enrolling under these conditions. Methods: We recruited patients who enrolled in a biobank while in a healthcare setting when receiving ordinary care. We assessed knowledge of consent materials using 11 true/false questions drawn from a well-known biobank knowledge test. After reviewing the results from 114 participants, we revised the consent form and repeated the knowledge assessment with 144 different participants. Results: Participants scored poorly on the knowledge test in both rounds, with no significant differences in overall scores or individual items between the rounds. In Phase 1, participants answered 53% of the questions correctly, 25% incorrectly, and 22% "I don't know." In Phase 2, participants answered 53% of questions correctly, 24% incorrectly, and 23% "I don't know." Participants scored particularly poorly on questions about data sharing and accessing medical records. Conclusions: Enrollees under an integrated consent model had significant misunderstandings that persisted despite an attempt to improve information specifically about those topics in a consent form. These results raise challenges for current approaches that attribute misunderstanding to overly complex consent forms. They also suggest that the pressures of the clinic may compound other problems with patient understanding of biobank consent. As health systems increasingly blend research and care, they may need to rethink their approach to educating patients about participation in a biobank.

Ethical Challenges in COVID-19 Biospecimen Research: Perspectives From Institutional Review Board Members and Bioethicists

Biospecimen research is a prominent investigative strategy that aims to provide novel insights into coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), inform clinical trials, and develop effective, life-saving treatments. However, COVID-19 biospecimen research raises accompanying ethical concerns and practical challenges for investigators and participants. In this special article, we discuss the ethical issues that are associated with autonomy, beneficence, and justice in COVID-19 biospecimen research and describe strategies to manage the practical challenges, with an emphasis on protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants during a pandemic response. Appropriate institutional review board oversight and bioethics guidance for COVID-19 biospecimen research must maintain their focus on protecting the rights and welfare of research participants, despite the urgent need for more knowledge about the virus and the threat it poses to communities and nations.

Opportunities and Risks for Research Biobanks in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which caused a global outbreak of COVID-19 disease, has been a crisis of extraordinary proportions, causing serious impacts for research and public health. Biobanks have played a key important role in understanding the disease and response. In our article we will highlight the opportunities and risks of biobanks during and after the pandemic. The different aspects of safety and sustainability have and will be the main challenges for biobanks. Furthermore, the role of biobanks in biomedical research and public health has been emphasized as well as opportunities that have arisen for their participation in research.

Context-Relative Norms Determine the Appropriate Type of Consent in Clinical Biobanks: Towards a Potential Solution for the Discrepancy between the General Data Protection Regulation and the European Data Protection Board on Requirements for Consent

Clinical biobanks processing data of participants in the European Union (EU) fall under the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which among others includes requirements for consent. These requirements are further specified by the Article 29 Working Party (WP29)-an EU advisory body currently known as the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). Unfortunately, their guidance is cause for some confusion. While the GDPR allows participants to give broad consent for research when specific research purposes are still unknown, the WP29 guidelines suggest that additional consent for specific uses should be obtained in addition to broad consent when this becomes applicable. This discrepancy elicits the question whether clinical biobanks can fail the requirement of consent if they obtain broad consent, but not a specific consent for each biomedical study. We analysed this discrepancy within the framework of contextual integrity, in order to describe the context-relative informational norms that govern information flows in clinical biobanks. However, our analysis demonstrates that there is no uniform set of norms that can be applied to all clinical biobanks. As such, neither the GDPR nor the WP29 guidance can act as a "one size fits all" approach to all clinical biobanks. Rather, differences between clinical biobanks-especially regarding the scientific aims and patient populations-make the case for context-relative norms that determine the appropriate type of consent.

Research participant understanding and engagement in an institutional, self-consent biobank model

The number of institutional and governmental biobanks and the target enrollment sizes of modern biobanks are increasing, affording more opportunities for the public to participate in biobanking efforts. In parallel with these expansions are pressures to increase the efficiency of obtaining informed consent using shorter consent forms that cover a broader scope of research and increasingly include provisions for return of research or clinical genetic test results to participants. Given these changes, how well these participants understand genetics, their level of understanding of what they are consenting to, and their wishes to engage longitudinally and receive biobank results are not well understood. We surveyed participants in a large, medical system-based biobank who had enrolled through a two-page, self-consent process about their baseline knowledge of genetics, understanding and recall of the consent process, wishes for future contact and engagement, and level of interest in receiving clinical genetic testing results. A total of 856 consented persons participated in the survey (67% women; 67% white). Participants' general reported genetics knowledge was relatively high (mean 11.60 of 15 questions answered correctly) as was recall of key elements from the two-page consent form. Overall participant enthusiasm for future contact by the biobank and for receiving clinical genetic testing results was high. The use of a two-page, self-consent process in a large, institutional biobank resulted in high levels of consent recall and enthusiasm for future ongoing engagement and receipt of genetic testing results by participants.

The Claims of Biospecimen Donors to Credit and Compensation

The biorights movement argues that current treatment of biospecimen donors is unfair. To evaluate this claim, the present Science & Society article identifies the standards used to determine credit and compensation in research, and applies them to donors. This analysis suggests most donors deserve credit and, contrary to current practice, some deserve compensation.

Assessing the stability of biobank donor preferences regarding sample use: evidence supporting the value of dynamic consent

Dynamic consent has been proposed as a strategy for addressing the limitations of traditional, broad consent for biobank participation. Although the argument for dynamic consent has been made on theoretical grounds, empirical studies evaluating the potential utility of dynamic consent are needed to enhance deliberations about the merits of dynamic consent. Few studies have assessed such considerations as whether donor preferences may change over time or if participants would use a dynamic consent mechanism to modify preferences when they change. We administered a 66-item survey to participants in a large DNA biobank. The survey sought to gauge the stability of donor preferences specified at the time of biobank enrollment, specifically the stability of donors’ preference regarding posthumous availability of biospecimens to next-of-kin. We received 1164 completed surveys for a response rate of 72%. Forty percent of respondents indicated a preference regarding sample availability on the survey (T2) that was inconsistent with the preference they had expressed when they enrolled in the biobank (T1). Most (94%) individuals with inconsistent preferences regarding sample availability had initially restricted sample availability at T1 but were comfortable with broader availability when asked at the time of the survey (T2). Our findings demonstrate that preferences regarding sample use expressed at the time of enrollment in a DNA biobank may not be reliable indicators of donor preferences over time. These findings lend empirical support to the case for a dynamic consent model in which biobank participants are approached over time to clarify their views regarding sample use.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Comprehension of Biospecimen Collection: a Nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Study

To examine whether (a) non-minority participants differed from racial minority participants in the understanding of biospecimens collected for research purposes, (b) patients differed from comparison group in their understanding of the ways their biospecimens could be used by researchers, and (c) participants received adequate information before consenting to donate blood for research studies. We analyzed cross-sectional data from female breast cancer patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) clinical sites and a healthy comparison group. After reading a consent form related to biospecimens and consenting to participate in a clinical trial, participants' understanding of biospecimen collection was evaluated. Linear models were used to compare scores between non-minority and racial minority participants as well as cancer and non-cancer comparisons adjusting for possible confounding factors. A total of 650 participants provided evaluable data; 592 were non-minority (Caucasian) and 58 participants were a racial minority (71% Black and 29% other). There were 427 cancer patients and 223 comparisons. Non-minority participants scored higher than racial minorities on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.48, CI 0.13-0.80, p = 0.001). Comparison group scored higher than cancer patients on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.58, CI 0.37-0.78). A moderate number of the participants exhibited a poor understanding of biospecimen collection across all racial/ethnic backgrounds, but racial minority participants' scores remained lower in the relevance-to-care subscale even after adjusting for education and reading level. Differences were also noted among the patients and comparison group. Researchers should facilitate comprehension of biospecimen collection for all study participants, especially racial minority participants.

Patient Perspectives About Decisions to Share Medical Data and Biospecimens for Research

IMPORTANCE

Patients increasingly demand transparency in and control of how their medical records and biospecimens are shared for research. How much they are willing to share and what factors influence their sharing preferences remain understudied in real settings.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether and how various presentations of consent forms are associated with differences in electronic health record and biospecimen sharing rates and whether these rates vary according to user interface design, data recipients, data and biospecimen items, and patient characteristics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this survey study, a data and biospecimen sharing preference survey was conducted at 2 academic hospitals from May 1, 2017, to September 31, 2018, after simple randomization of patients to 1 of 4 options with different layout and formats of indicating sharing preferences: opt-in simple, opt-in detailed, opt-out simple, and opt-out detailed.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants were presented with a list of data and biospecimen items that could be shared for research within the same health care organization or with other nonprofit or for-profit institutions. Participating patients were randomly asked to select the items that they would share (opt-in) or were asked to select items they would not share (opt-out). Patients in these 2 groups were further randomized to select only among 18 categories vs 59 detailed items (simple vs detailed form layout).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end points were the percentages of patients willing to share data and biospecimen categories or items.

RESULTS

Among 1800 eligible participants, 1246 (69.2%) who completed their data sharing survey were included in the analysis, and 850 of these patients (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [16.7] years; 507 [59.6%] female; 677 [79.6%] white) responded to the satisfaction survey. A total of 46 participants (3.7%) declined sharing with the home institution, 352 (28.3%) with nonprofit institutions, and 590 (47.4%) with for-profit institutions. A total of 836 (67.1%) indicated that they would share all items with researchers from the home institution. When comparing opt-out with opt-in interfaces, all 59 sharing choice variables (100%) were associated with the sharing decision. When comparing simple with detailed forms, only 14 variables (23.7%) were associated with the sharing decision.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that most patients are willing to share their data and biospecimens for research. Allowing patients to decide with whom they want to share certain types of data may affect research that involves secondary use of electronic health records and/or biosamples for research.

Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools

Background

Despite existing international, regional and national guidance on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research, valid consent remains both a practical and normative challenge. This challenge persists despite additional evidence-based guidance obtained through conceptual and empirical research in specific localities on the same subject. The purpose of this paper is to provide an account for why, despite this guidance, this challenge still persist and suggest conceptual resources that can help make sense of this problem and eventually mitigate it’.

Main body

This paper argues that despite the existence of detailed official guidance and prior conceptual and empirical research on how to obtain valid consent, the question of ‘how to obtain and ascertain valid consent to participation in health-related research’ cannot always be fully answered by exclusive reference to pre-determined criteria/guidance provided by the guidelines and prior research’. To make intelligible why this is so and how this challenge could be allayed, the paper proposes six concepts. The first five of these are intended to account for the persistent seeming inadequacies of existing guidelines. These are fact-skepticism; guideline insufficiency; generality; context-neutrality and presumptiveness. As an outcome of these five, the paper analyzes and recommends a sixth, called bioethical reflexivity. Bioethical reflexivity is reckoned as a handy tool, skill, and attitude by which, in addition to guidance from context-specific research, the persisting challenges can be further eased.

Conclusions

Existing ethical guidelines on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research are what they ought to be – general, presumptive and context-neutral. This explains their seeming inadequacies whenever they are being applied in concrete situations. Hence, the challenges being encountered while obtaining valid consent can be significantly eased if we appreciate the guidelines’ nature and what this means for their implementation. There is also a need to cultivate reflexive mindsets plus the relevant skills needed to judiciously close the unavoidable gaps between guidelines and their application in concrete cases. This equally applies to the gaps which cannot be filled by reference to additional guidance from prior conceptual and empirical research in specific contexts.

Managing the Unimaginable: Biobank Participant Views on Reconsent for Whole Genome Sequencing of Stored Biospecimens

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.

The Attitude of Patients from a Romanian Tertiary Cardiology Center as Regards Participation in Biomarker-Based Clinical Trials - Survey Methodology

One of the challenges faced when conducting a clinical trial is the recruitment of the proposed number of participants. Accordingly, identifying barriers to patients’ enrollment and developing effective strategies to overcome them is mandatory. One of the main strategies employed to improve participation rate consists of designing the informed consent forms based on patients’ feedback. This survey aims to explore the attitude of patients admitted in a Romanian tertiary cardiology center to take part in biomarker-based clinical trials.

This is a descriptive, prospective and longitudinal single-center study. Participants will be recruited until the planned sample size will be reached (n=333). The patients will be interviewed based on a semi-structured questionnaire which includes four sections: demographics (7 items), personal medical history (7 items), attitudes (9 items) and trust (4 items). Descriptive statistics will be used to illustrate patients’ demographics, medical history, attitudes toward biomarker-based clinical trials and trust in medical researchers. Logistic regression models will be employed to assess relations between patients’ attitudes, trust, and different socio-demographic variables.

Data analysis will offer answers to key questions addressed by this survey: What amount of and in what form should information be disclosed? Who should make the invitation to participate?

The information gained will facilitate tailoring informed consent forms to suit the needs of patients with various demographic, social and educational backgrounds.

The Biospecimen Preanalytical Variables Program: A Multiassay Comparison of Effects of Delay to Fixation and Fixation Duration on Nucleic Acid Quality

CONTEXT.—

Despite widespread use of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue in clinical and research settings, potential effects of variable tissue processing remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE.—

To elucidate molecular effects associated with clinically relevant preanalytical variability, the National Cancer Institute initiated the Biospecimen Preanalytical Variables (BPV) program.

DESIGN.—

The BPV program, a well-controlled series of systematic, blind and randomized studies, investigated whether a delay to fixation (DTF) or time in fixative (TIF) affects the quantity and quality of DNA and RNA isolated from FFPE colon, kidney, and ovarian tumors in comparison to case-matched snap-frozen controls.

RESULTS.—

DNA and RNA yields were comparable among FFPE biospecimens subjected to different DTF and TIF time points. DNA and RNA quality metrics revealed assay- and time point-specific effects of DTF and TIF. A quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assay was superior when assessing RNA quality, consistently detecting differences between FFPE and snap-frozen biospecimens and among DTF and TIF time points. RNA Integrity Number and DV₂₀₀ (representing the percentage of RNA fragments longer than 200 nucleotides) displayed more limited sensitivity. Differences in DNA quality (Q-ratio) between FFPE and snap-frozen biospecimens and among DTF and TIF time points were detected with a qPCR-based assay.

CONCLUSIONS.—

DNA and RNA quality may be adversely affected in some tumor types by a 12-hour DTF or a TIF of 72 hours. Results presented here as well as those of additional BPV molecular analyses underway will aid in the identification of acceptable delays and optimal fixation times, and quality assays that are suitable predictors of an FFPE biospecimen's fit-for-purpose.

Model framework for governance of genomic research and biobanking in Africa - a content description

Genomic research and biobanking are expanding globally, with a promise to fast-track the research needed to improve approaches to disease treatment and prevention through scientific collaborations such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) initiative. Integral to this type of research is the availability of samples and data for research. The need for broad access brings along a host of ethical concerns, including those related to privacy and confidentiality, as well as fairness and equity in access and capacity to utilise these samples between scientists from the high income and low income countries. Addressing these concerns while promoting genomic research, especially in Africa, requires the implementation of a sound governance framework. In this paper, we describe the contents of a Framework for Best Practice for Genomics Research and biobanking in Africa that was developed, under the auspices of the H3Africa initiative. This framework is broad enough to be used and adapted by African countries to facilitate the development of country-specific guidelines and to help improve the conduct and governance of genomics research.

Model framework for governance of genomic research and biobanking in Africa - a content description

Genomic research and biobanking are expanding globally, with a promise to fast-track the research needed to improve approaches to disease treatment and prevention through scientific collaborations such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) initiative. Integral to this type of research is the availability of samples and data for research. The need for broad access brings along a host of ethical concerns, including those related to privacy and confidentiality, as well as fairness and equity in access and capacity to utilise these samples between scientists from the high income and low income countries. Addressing these concerns while promoting genomic research, especially in Africa, requires the implementation of a sound governance framework. In this paper, we describe the contents of a Framework for Best Practice for Genomics Research and biobanking in Africa that was developed, under the auspices of the H3Africa initiative. This framework is broad enough to be used and adapted by African countries to facilitate the development of country-specific guidelines and to help improve the conduct and governance of genomics research.

Patient perspectives on compensation for biospecimen donation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine whether biospecimen donors believe they should receive compensation. This is the first study to report biospecimen donors' views on compensation and can potentially improve informed consent and recruitment practices.

METHODS

Researchers asked patients undergoing surgical removal of tissue to donate biological materials to a biobank; the request was made at their presurgical appointment or in the preoperative clinic of the Emory University Hospital. We interviewed 126 biospecimen donors within 30 days post surgery regarding their perspective on compensation for biospecimen donation.

RESULTS

In response to the question "Should you be paid for your participation in the tissue bank?," 95 (95/126, 75%) participants answered "No." Of these, 55 (55/95, 58%) indicated that donating biological materials should be about altruism, not gaining a monetary reward. Only 11 (11/126, 9%) participants unequivocally believed they should receive compensation, while 14 (14/126, 11%) felt entitled to compensation only under specific circumstances. Eleven (11/14) "Depends" participants indicated that donors should only be compensated when researchers perform for-profit research. Responses varied by race and income level, with whites more likely to not feel entitled to compensation and higher income participants more likely to respond "Depends."

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of biospecimen donors stated they should not be paid for tissue bank participation. However, a minority believe they should be paid for donating tissue if the tissue is used in revenue-generating projects. These results provide some support for the current biobanking practice of not providing compensation.