Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):1577-1583. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0376. Epub 2019 Jun 10.
As 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 METHODS: We 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.
Across 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.
Our 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.
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.
随着科学技术的发展,历史知情同意书可能无法充分解决现代研究提案,从而引发关于使用存档生物样本进行研究的伦理问题。
受试者、材料和方法:我们在马萨诸塞州综合医院招募了癌症患者进行焦点小组讨论,以探讨他们对医学研究、生物库以及基于真实生物样本研究困境的情景的看法。我们的多学科团队制定了一份结构化的焦点小组指南,所有小组都进行了记录和转录。两名独立的调查人员使用 NVivo 软件对转录本进行主题编码。
在五个有 21 名参与者的焦点小组中,我们发现大多数参与者支持生物库和使用自己的组织来推进科学知识。许多人赞成,如果无法重新联系到参与者,允许超出原始同意范围的研究继续进行。然而,参与者不愿意代表可能反对超出原始同意的其他患者发言。这被视为对参与者权利或利益的潜在侵犯。参与者还担心如果不遵守原始同意,研究就会被允许,那么就会出现“滑坡”和潜在的科学滥用。当可能重新联系和重新同意时,以及在组织收集组织时支持广泛同意的概念,得到了强烈支持。
我们的参与者支持使用他们的组织推进研究,并且通常支持任何有成效的科学方法。然而,在缺乏广泛的初步同意的情况下,当无法重新联系时,必须就提案的潜在益处和危害做出个案决策。许多参与者支持广泛使用他们的组织,但少数人反对超出原始同意的使用。
对于为未来研究收集组织的前瞻性研究,研究人员应考虑寻求广泛的同意,以允许研究问题和方法的演变。对于使用先前收集的组织的研究,研究人员应尝试重新联系并重新同意超出原始同意范围的研究目的或方法。当重新同意不可能时,必须做出个案决策,权衡生物库的科学价值、拟议研究的潜在益处以及参与者及其福利利益的风险的可能性和性质。本研究的数据表明,许多参与者支持广泛使用他们的组织,并希望科学向前发展。