Confidentiality in Biobanking Research: A Comparison of Donor and Nondonor Families' Understanding of Risks

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 171-177

  Siminoff, Laura A ^a   Wilson Genderson, Maureen ^a   Mosavel, Maghboeba ^b   Barker, Laura ^a   Trgina, Jennifer ^b   Traino, Heather M ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

access to genetic data; Biobank; genetic testing and screening; legal policy; privacy; rights of the gene donors

Indexed keywords

BIOBANK; CONFIDENTIALITY; FAMILY STUDY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IDENTITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PRIVACY; SCIENTIST; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DONOR; FAMILY; FEMALE; GENETIC PRIVACY; MALE; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FAMILY; FEMALE; GENETIC PRIVACY; HUMANS; MALE; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 85015807492     PISSN: 19450265     EISSN: 19450257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2016.0407     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Berg J, Khoury M, Evans J (2011) Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 13:499-504.
2. Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE, Clark BJ, et al. (2012) Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med 14:478-483.
3. Brothers KB, Morrison DR, Clayton EW (2011) Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. Am J Med Genet A 155A:2982-2990.
4. Chan B, Facio FM, Eidem H, et al. (2012) Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives. Am J Bioeth 12:1-8.
5. Clayton EW, McGuire AL (2012) The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med 14:473-477.
6. GTEx Consortium (2013) The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat Genet 45:580-585.
7. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas S, Williams M, et al. (1999) Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med 14:537-546.
8. Craig DW (2016) Understanding the links between privacy and public data sharing. Nat Methods 13:211-212.
9. Eisman E, Haga S (1999) Handbook of Human Tissue Sources: A National Resource of Human Tissue Samples. RAND, Santa Monica, CA.
10. Evans JP, Rothschild MD (2012) Return of results: not that complicated? Genet Med 14:358-360.
11. Ewing AT, Erby LA, Bollinger J, et al. (2015) Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research. Biopreserv Biobank 13:98-106.
12. Gao W, Ma G, Tan T, et al. (2014) Factors associated with willingness to participate in biospecimen research among Chinese Americans. Biopreserv Biobank 12:131-138.
13. Godskesen T, Hansson M, Nygren P, et al. (2014) Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motivess behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials. Eur J Cancer Care 24:133-141.
14. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. (2015) Broad conset for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth 15:34-42.
15. Green R, Berg J, Grody W, et al. (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15:265-274.
16. Hagiwara N, Berry-Bobovski L, Francis C, et al. (2014) Unexpected findings in the exploration of African American underrepresentation in biospecimen collection and biobanks. J Cancer Educ 29:580-587.
17. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards, TP, et al. (2013) Char-acterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey. Genome Med 5:3-15.
18. Hunter J, Corcoran K, Leeder S, et al. (2012) Appealing to altruism is not enough: motivators for participating in health services research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 7:84-90.
19. Jarvik G, Amendola L, Berg J, et al. (2014) Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Med Genet 94:818-916.
20. Johnson G, Lawrenz F, Thao M (2012) An empirical examination of the management of resturn of individualized research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 14:444-450.
21. Kardia S, Platt J (2015) Public trust in health information sharing: implications for biobanking and electronic health record systems. J Pers Med 5:3-21.
22. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, et al. (2009) Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 85:643-654.
23. Keen J, Moore H (2015) The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project: linking clinical data with molecular analysis to advance personalized medicine. J Pers Med 5:22-29.
24. Kerath SM, Klein G, Shapira I, et al. (2013) Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research- A population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 13:1-9.
25. Lowrance W, Collins F (2007) Ethics: identifiability in genomic research. Science 317:600-602.
26. Maitland M, Xu C, Cheng Y, et al. (2015) Identification of a variant in KDR associated with serum VEGFR2 and phar-macodynamics of pazopanib. Clin Cancer Res 21:365-372.
27. McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA (2010) Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 11:31.
28. McGuire A, Robinson J, Ramoni R, et al. (2013) Returning genetic research results; study matters. Per Med 10:27-44.
29. Murphy-Bollinger J, Bridges J, Mohamed A, et al. (2014) Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis. Genet Med 16:932-939.
30. Oliver J, Slashinski M, Wang T, et al. (2011) Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives. Public Health Genomics 15:106-114.
31. O'Reilly R, Elphick HE (2013) Development, clinical utility, and place of ivacaftor in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Drug Des Devel Ther 7:929-937.
32. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, et al. (2009) Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 149A:188-198.
33. Overby C, Maloney K, Alestock T, et al. (2015) Prioritizing approaches to engage community members and build trust in biobanks: a survey of attitudes and opinions of adults within outpatient practices at the University of Maryland. J Pers Med 5:13.
34. Pinxten W, Howard H (2014) Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28:269-279.
35. Rodriguez EM, Torres ET, Erwin DO (2013) Awareness and interest in biospecimen donation for cancer research: views from gatekeepers and prospective participants in the Latino community. J Community Genet 4:461-468.
36. Rodriguez LL, Brooks LD, Greenberg JH, et al. (2013) Research ethics. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 339:275-276.
37. Rogith D, Yusuf RA, Hovick SR, et al. (2014) Attitudes regarding privacy of genomic information in personalized cancer therapy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21:e320-e325.
38. Rubright J, Cary M, Karlawish J, et al. (2011) Measuring how people view biomedical research: reliability and validity analysis of the research attitudes questionnaire. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 6:63-68.
39. Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J, et al. (2001) Factors influencing families' consent for donation of solid organs for transplantation. JAMA 286:71-77.
40. Siminoff, LA, Traino HM, Gordon N (2010) Determinants of family consent to tissue donation. J Trauma 69:956-963.
41. Siminoff, LA, Traino HM, Mosavel M, et al. (2016) Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research. Genet Med 18:82-88.
42. Takahashi H, Kaniwa N, Saito Y, et al. (2013) Identification of a candidate single-nucleotide polymorphism related to che-motherapeutic response through a combination of knowledge-based algorithm and hypothesis-free genomic data. J Biosci Bioeng 116:768-773.
43. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, et al. (2012) Informed consent in genome-scale research: what do prospective participants think? AJOB Prim Res 3:3-11.
44. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, et al. (2012) Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet 90:7-24.
45. Witt H (2011) New modifier loci in cystic fibrosis. Nat Genet 43:508-509.
46. Wolf SM, Branum R, Koenig BA, et al. (2015) Returning a research participant's genomic results to relatives: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 43:440-463.