Dataset Information

The Perspectives of Haematological Cancer Patients on Tissue Banking.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A high level of support for tissue banking has been identified amongst both the general public and patients. However, much debate remains about the regulatory framework of tissue banks.

Objective

This study explored the views of haematological cancer patients regarding tissue banking and how tissue banks should operate.

Methods

Haematological cancer patients from three outpatient clinics in Australia completed a questionnaire examining their preferences for tissue banking as well as items about their sociodemographic characteristics, disease and treatment history.

Results

The majority of participants (95%) reported being willing to allow their leftover tissue to be used for medical research. Three quarters (76%) supported the idea of their medical record being linked to their tissue sample, and 77% preferred a blanket (one-off) consent model for future research use of their tissue sample. Only 57 (27%) participants had been asked to give a tissue sample for research, 98% of whom gave permission.

Conclusion

The majority of haematological cancer patients are willing to donate their leftover tissue to a tissue bank and have their medical records linked to tissue samples and prefer a one-off consent process. These novel data from potential donors inform the debate about how tissue banks might operate.

Funding

Strategic Research Partnership Grant from the Cancer Council NSW to the Newcastle Cancer Control Collaborative (New-3C) and infrastructure funding from the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI). A.W. is supported by an Australian Research Council DECRA fellowship (DE150101262). T.C.M. was supported by a Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland Post-Doctoral Fellowship. A.B. is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1073317) and Cancer Institute NSW (13/ECF/1-37) Early Career Fellowships.

SUBMITTER: Turon H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5315074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveApproximately half of male childhood cancer survivors experience impaired fertility, yet fertility preservation (FP) remains underutilized. Although parent recommendation influences adolescents' decision-making, parents may be uncertain and/or underrate their sons' parenthood goals. This study assessed parent-adolescent and family-level concordance regarding adolescent fertility perspectives (i.e., values, goals) and associations with FP attempts.MethodsA prospective pilot study examined the impact of a family-centered values clarification tool (FAST) on banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer at risk for infertility. The FAST assessed adolescent and parent perceptions of adolescents' fertility values and goals (i.e., perceived threat of infertility, perceived benefits/barriers to banking). Parent-adolescent concordance and family-level concordance on fertility perspectives were examined, along with associations with banking attempts and salient demographic factors.ResultsNinety-eight participants (32 adolescents aged 12-20, 37 mothers, 29 fathers) from 32 families completed the FAST before treatment initiation. Parent-adolescent dyads were concordant on approximately one-half of responses. Banking attempts were associated with higher family-level concordance regarding perceived benefits, r(32) = .40, p = .02. Older adolescent age was associated with higher family-level concordance regarding perceived threat, r(31) = .37, p = .04, and benefits, r(32) = .40, p = .03. Fathers' education was associated with higher family-level concordance regarding barriers, r(21) = .53, p = .01.ConclusionsWhen parents were concordant with their son's fertility values and goals, particularly perceived benefits, adolescents were more likely to attempt FP. Clinicians should facilitate sharing of fertility perspectives within families before cancer treatment, especially with younger adolescents. Psychosocial support for families facing FP decisions is recommended at diagnosis and across the care continuum.

Project description:ObjectivesHaematological malignancies are the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with chronic subtypes comprising around a third of all new diagnoses. These complex diseases have some similarities with other cancers, but often require different management. Surgical resection is not possible, and while some are curable with intensive chemotherapy, most indolent subtypes are managed with non-aggressive intermittent or continuous treatment, often over many years. Little is known about the views of patients with chronic haematological cancers regarding treatment decision making (TDM), a deficit our study aimed to address.Setting and designSet within the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN: www.hmrn.org), an ongoing population-based cohort that provides infrastructure to support evidence-based research, HMRN data were augmented by qualitative information from in-depth interviews. Data were analysed for thematic content, combining inductive and deductive approaches. Interpretation involved seeking meaning, salience and connections within data.ParticipantsThirty-five patients with four chronic subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and myeloma. Ten relatives were present and contributed to varying extents.ResultsFive themes were discerned: (1) Preference for clinician recommendations; (2) Factors implicated in patient involvement in TDM; (3) Perceptions of proactive/non-proactive approaches to TDM; (4) Experiences of TDM at various points in the disease trajectory; (5) Support from others. Our principal finding relates to a strong preference among interviewees for treatment recommendations from haematologists, based on trust in their expertise and perceptions of empathetic patient-clinician relationships.ConclusionInterviewees wanted to be involved in TDM to varying extents, contingent on complex, inter-related factors, that are dynamic and subject to change according to differing clinical and personal contexts. Patients may benefit from clinicians assessing their shifting preferences for involvement on multiple occasions. Strong preferences for acceptance of recommendations was associated with cancer complexity, trust in clinician expertise and positive perceptions of patient-clinician relationships.