Ethical aspects of participation in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B Experience

Cancer

Volumn 118, Issue 20, 2012, Pages 5060-5068

  Peppercorn, Jeffrey ^a   Shapira, Iuliana ^b   Deshields, Teressa ^c   Kroetz, Deanna ^d   Friedman, Paula ^e   Spears, Patricia ^f   Collyar, Deborah E ^g   Shulman, Lawrence N ^h   Dressler, Lynn ⁱ   Bertagnolli, Monica M ^j  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Hofstra University North Shore LIJ Health System ^*  (United States)

^c BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e Patient Advocate   (United States)

^f Patient Advocates in Research   (United States)

^g Dana Farber Cancer Institute ^*  (United States)

^h DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁱ University of North Carolina   (United States)

^j BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes of the National Center for Biotechnology Information; ethics; future use of tissue; genome wide association study; informed consent

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOETHICS; FEMALE; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC TRAIT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEALTH DISPARITY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PEDIGREE; PHENOTYPIC VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; TELECONFERENCE;

DATABASES AS TOPIC; ETHICS COMMITTEES; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LEUKEMIA; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); NEOPLASMS; PHENOTYPE; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84867334155     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27515     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R,. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet. 2005; 6: 75-79.
2. Elger BS, Caplan AL,. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 2006; 7: 661-666.
3. Shulman LN, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, et al. Four versus 6 cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or paclitaxel (T) as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in women with 0-3 positive axillary nodes: CALGB 40101-A 2×2 factorial phase III trial: first results comparing 4 vs 6 cycles of therapy. Paper presented at: 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 8-12, 2010; San Antonio, Tex. Abstract S6-3.
4. Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K,. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 18: 398-403.
5. Bathe OF, McGuire AL,. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet Med. 2009; 11: 712-715.
6. Beauchamp TL, Faden RR,. The right to health and the right to health care. J Med Philos. 1979; 4: 118-131.
7. Capron AM, Mauron A, Elger BS, Boggio A, Ganguli-Mitra A, Biller-Andorno N,. Ethical norms and the international governance of genetic databases and biobanks: findings from an international study. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2009; 19: 101-124.
8. Furness PN, Nicholson ML,. Obtaining explicit consent for the use of archival tissue samples: practical issues. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30: 561-564.
9. Glantz L, Roche P, Annas GJ,. Rules for donations to tissue banks-what next? N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 298-303.
10. Greely HT,. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2007; 8: 343-364.
11. Hansson MG,. Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer. 2009; 100: 8-12.
12. Helft PR, Champion VL, Eckles R, Johnson CS, Meslin EM,. Cancer patients' attitudes toward future research uses of stored human biological materials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007; 2: 15-22.
13. Kaiser J,. Biobanks. Population databases boom, from Iceland to the US. Science. 2002; 298: 1158-1161.
14. Rothstein MA,. Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. J Law Med Ethics. 2005; 33: 89-101.
15. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, et al. A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples. Br J Cancer. 2009; 101: 1505-1512.
16. Wendler D, Prasad K, Wilfond B,. Does the current consent process minimize the risks of genetics research? Am J Med Genet. 2002; 113: 258-262.
17. US Department of Health and Human Services. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making. July 22, 2011. Available at: http;//www. hhs.gov/ohrp/ humansubjects/index.html. Accessed December 4, 2011.
18. Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB, et al. A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 870-874.
19. Yeager M, Orr N, Hayes RB, et al. Genome-wide association study of prostate cancer identifies a second risk locus at 8q24. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 645-649.
20. Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature. 2007; 447: 1087-1093.
21. Gudmundsson J, Sulem P, Manolescu A, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variant at 8q24. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 631-637.
22. Thomas G, Jacobs KB, Yeager M, et al. Multiple loci identified in a genome-wide association study of prostate cancer. Nat Genet. 2008; 40: 310-315.
23. Kraft P, Cox DG,. Study designs for genome-wide association studies. Adv Genet. 2008; 60: 465-504.
24. Serre D, Montpetit A, Pare G, et al. Correction of population stratification in large multi-ethnic association studies [serial online]. PLoS One. 2008; 3: e1382.
25. Mailman MD, Feolo M, Jin Y, et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 1181-1186.
26. Pearson TA, Manolio TA,. How to interpret a genome-wide association study. JAMA. 2008; 299: 1335-1344.
27. Johnson AD, O'Donnell CJ,. An open access database of genome-wide association results [serial online]. BMC Med Genet. 2009; 10: 6.
28. Shastry BS,. Pharmacogenetics and the concept of individualized medicine. Pharmacogenomics J. 2006; 6: 16-21.
29. Fletcher O, Johnson N, Orr N, et al. Novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 9q31.2: results of a genome-wide association study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 425-435.
30. Hemminki K, Forsti A, Lorenzo Bermejo J,. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are inherited from parents and they measure heritable events [serial online]. J Carcinog. 2005; 4: 2.
31. Milne RL, Benitez J, Nevanlinna H, et al. Risk of estrogen receptor-positive and -negative breast cancer and single-nucleotide polymorphism 2q35-rs13387042. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 1012-1018.
32. Turnbull C, Ahmed S, Morrison J, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 5 new breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010; 42: 504-507.
33. Lee JK, Coutant C, Kim YC, et al. Prospective comparison of clinical and genomic multivariate predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 711-718.
34. Liedtke C, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 3185-3191.
35. Symmans WF, Hatzis C, Sotiriou C, et al. Genomic index of sensitivity to endocrine therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 4111-4119.
36. Asslaber M, Zatloukal K,. Biobanks: transnational, European and global networks. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic. 2007; 6: 193-201.
37. Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan P, et al. Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want? Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 652-655.
38. Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE, et al. Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 3386-3395.
39. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement [serial online]. PLoS Biol. 2008; 6: e73.
40. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM,. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008; 9: 406-411.
41. McQuillan GM, Porter KS, Agelli M, Kington R,. Consent for genetic research in a general population: the NHANES experience. Genet Med. 2003; 5: 35-42.
42. McQuillan GM, Pan Q, Porter KS,. Consent for genetic research in a general population: an update on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey experience. Genet Med. 2006; 8: 354-360.
43. Wendler D, Emanuel E,. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162: 1457-1462.
44. Pentz RD, Billot L, Wendler D,. Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and white American cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A. 2006; 140: 733-739.
45. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W,. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med. 2010; 12: 486-495.
46. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays [serial online]. PLoS Genet. 2008; 4: e1000167.
47. Greenbaum D, Sboner A, Mu XJ, Gerstein M,. Genomics and privacy: implications of the new reality of closed data for the field [serial online]. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011; 7: e1002278.
48. Genetics without borders [serial online]. Nature. 2009; 461: 697.
49. Botkin JR,. Informed consent for genetic research [serial online]. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2010; Chapter 1(Unit 1):16.
50. Sankararaman S, Obozinski G, Jordan MI, Halperin E,. Genomic privacy and limits of individual detection in a pool. Nat Genet. 2009; 41: 965-967.
51. Jacobs KB, Yeager M, Wacholder S, et al. A new statistic and its power to infer membership in a genome-wide association study using genotype frequencies. Nat Genet. 2009; 41: 1253-1257.
52. Visscher PM, Hill WG,. The limits of individual identification from sample allele frequencies: theory and statistical analysis [serial online]. PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000628.
53. Lumley T, Rice K,. Potential for revealing individual-level information in genome-wide association studies. JAMA. 2010; 303: 659-660.
54. van Diest PJ,. No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. For [serial online]. BMJ. 2002; 325: 648-651.
55. Coebergh JW, van Veen EB, Vandenbroucke JP, van Diest P, Oosterhuis W,. One-time general consent for research on biological samples: opt out system for patients is optimal and endorsed in many countries [serial online]. BMJ. 2006; 332: 665-666.
56. Furness P,. Consent to using human tissue [serial online]. BMJ. 2003; 327: 759-760.
57. Bryant RJ, Harrison RF, Start RD, et al. Ownership and uses of human tissue: what are the opinions of surgical in-patients? J Clin Pathol. 2008; 61: 322-326.
58. Wendler D,. One-time general consent for research on biological samples: is it compatible with the health insurance portability and accountability act? Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 1449-1452.
59. Jack AL, Womack C,. Why surgical patients do not donate tissue for commercial research: review of records [serial online]. BMJ. 2003; 327: 262.
60. Stegmayr B, Asplund K,. Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study [serial online]. BMJ. 2002; 325: 634-635.
61. Wheeler J, Agarwal M, Sugden J, Bladon M, Quirke P,. Experiences from the front-line routine consenting of surplus surgically removed tissue: without investment by the National Health Service fully informed consent for all is not available. J Clin Pathol. 2007; 60: 351-354.
62. Malone T, Catalano PJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Giantonio B,. High rate of consent to bank biologic samples for future research: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 769-771.
63. Hamajima N, Tajima K, Oya H, et al. Patients' views on residual blood use for research purposes. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1998; 89: 341-345.
64. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A,. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model [serial online]. BMC Med Ethics. 2003; 4: E1.
65. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, Kuenen M, van Leeuwen FE,. Obtaining "fresh" consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years ago. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 1168-1174.
66. Takata R, Akamatsu S, Kubo M, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 5 new susceptibility loci for prostate cancer in the Japanese population. Nat Genet. 2010; 42: 751-754.
67. Hooker S, Hernandez W, Chen H, et al. Replication of prostate cancer risk loci on 8q24, 11q13, 17q12, 19q33, and Xp11 in African Americans. Prostate. 2010; 70: 270-275.
68. Yang JJ, Cheng C, Devidas M, et al. Ancestry and pharmacogenomics of relapse in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat Genet. 2011; 43: 237-241.
69. Cho MK,. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics. 2008; 36: 280-285, 212.
70. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008; 36: 219-248, 211.
71. Dressler LG,. Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science. Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15: 4270-4276.
72. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS,. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2006; 6: 8-17.
73. Affleck P,. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? J Med Ethics. 2009; 35: 209-213.
74. Perez EA, Vogel CL, Irwin DH, Kirshner JJ, Patel R,. Multicenter phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 4216-4223.
75. National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH Points to Consider for IRBs and Institutions in Their Review of Data Submission Plans for Institutional Certifications Under NIH's Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). Bethesda, MD: NIH; 2011. Available at: gwas.nih.gov/pdf/PTC-for-IRBs-and-Institutions-revised5-31-11.pdf. [Accessed January 19, 2012.]
76. Shuster E,. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 1436-1440.
77. Colditz GA,. Constraints on data sharing: experience from the Nurses' Health Study. Epidemiology. 2009; 20: 169-171.
78. Haga SB, Beskow LM,. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv Genet. 2008; 60: 505-544.