Patients would benefit from simplified ethical review and consent procedure

The Lancet Oncology

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 451-453

  Hansson, Mats G ^a   Van Ommen, Gert Jan ^b   Chadwick, Ruth ^c   Dillner, Joakim ^d  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WART VIRUS VACCINE;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONFIDENTIALITY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; LETTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VACCINATION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; ETHICAL REVIEW; GENETIC PRIVACY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; REGISTRIES; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TISSUE BANKS;

EID: 84876975864     PISSN: 14702045     EISSN: 14745488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70129-3     Document Type: Letter

References (11)

1. Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (general data protection regulation), amendment 27 2012, European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home AffairsJustice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, Brussels.
2. Bledsoe CH, Sherin B, Galinsky AG, et al. Regulating creativity: research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwest Univ Law Rev 2007, 101:593-641.
3. Beauchamp TL Viewpoint: why our conceptions of research and practice may not serve the best interest of patients and subjects. J Intern Med 2011, 269:383-387.
4. Wendler D One-time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ 2006, 332:544-547.
5. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlsson J, Helgesson G Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?. Lancet Oncol 2006, 7:266-269.
6. Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Federal Register 2011, 76:44512-44531. US Department of Health and Human Services.
7. Lehtinen M, Dillner J, Knekt P, et al. Serologically diagnosed infection with human papillomavirus type 16 and risk for subsequent development of cervical carcinoma: nested case-control study. BMJ 1996, 312:537-539.
8. Wallin KL, Wiklund F, ångström T, et al. Type-specific persistence of human papillomavirus DNA before the development of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1633-1638.
9. Background to a vaccination programme for the human papilloma virus in Sweden 2007 2008, National Board of Health and Welfare, National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm.
10. van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002, 415:530-536.
11. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:1999-2009.