Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of tissue samples from children is vital to genetic research. Collections of such tissue, in so-called biobanks, can take the form of large-scale prospective cohort studies or disease-specific studies using tissue of children with that specific disease. Collections of samples gathered in a diagnostics context, such as blood spot cards, can also be used for genetic research. Research on stored tissue samples from children poses ethical questions that are different from those posed by the use of samples from adults. Also, the ethical questions raised by the participation of children in biobanks are not analogous to those raised by the participation of children in clinical trials. In this review we first give an overview of the international ethical guidelines and legal regulations concerning biobanking and minors. Next, we review the different themes that occur in the ethical literature on this subject. Specifically we focus on questions of risk and benefit, consent and assent and the return of individual results. We also discuss the concept of solidarity, which is a relatively new concept in the context of children and biomedical research. To conclude, we discuss the gaps and questions raised by the review.

Background Breast cancer risk stratification categorizes a woman’s potential risk of developing the disease as near-population, intermediate, or high. In accordance, screening and follow up for breast cancer can readily be tailored following risk assessment. Recent efforts have focussed on developing more accessible means to convey this information to women. This study sought to document the relevance of an informational e-platform developed for these purposes. Objective To begin to assess a newly developed breast cancer risk stratification and decision support e-platform called PERSPECTIVE (PErsonalised Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early deteCTIon of breast cancer) among women who do not know their personal breast cancer risk (Phase 1). Changes (pre- and post- e-platform exposure) in knowledge of breast cancer risk and interest in undergoing genetic testing were assessed in addition to perceptions of platform usability and acceptability. Methods Using a pre-post design, women ( N  = 156) of differing literacy and education levels, aged 30 to 60, with no previous breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from the general population and completed self-report e-questionnaires. Results Mean e-platform viewing time was 18.67 min (SD 0.65) with the most frequently visited pages being breast cancer-related risk factors and risk assessment. Post-exposure, participants reported  significantly higher breast cancer-related knowledge ( p  < .001). Increases in knowledge relating to obesity, alcohol, breast density, menstruation, and the risk estimation process remained even when sociodemographic variables age and education were controlled. There were no significant changes in genetic testing interest post-exposure. Mean ratings for e-platform acceptability and usability were high: 26.19 out of 30 (SD 0.157) and 42.85 out of 50 (SD 0.267), respectively . Conclusions An informative breast cancer risk stratification e-platform targeting healthy women in the general population can significantly increase knowledge as well as support decisions around breast cancer risk and assessment. Currently underway, Phase 2, called PERSPECTIVE, is seeking further content integration and broader implementation .

Background and Objective: Advances in omics open new opportunities for cancer risk prediction and risk-based screening interventions. However, implementation of risk prediction in clinical practice may impact the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects of current cancer screening programs. In order to support decision-making, we analyzed the ethical, legal, and regulatory issues and developed a set of Points to Consider to support management of these issues. Methods: We analyzed the legal and policy frameworks applicable to breast and cervical cancer screening programs in 7 European countries. We identified the most relevant issues to be considered, and we developed considerations for their management, based on the literature, the legal and policy frameworks, and our experience with similar issues. Results: The considerations focus on five topics: (A) health services planning, (B) information and invitation, (C) consent and data/sample collection, (D) risk calculation and communication of results, and (E) storage of data and residual samples. Conclusion: Current frameworks might not be adequate to implement a risk prediction approach using omics factors due to the different characteristics of such approaches.

Five years ago, an article co-written by some of us (Joly and Simard) presented an emerging trend to disclose some individual genetic results to research participants within the international research community. At the time, ethical norms and scholarly publications on the return of results often did not distinguish between the return of research results in general and the return of unexpected results (also called incidental findings). Both technologies and research practices have evolved significantly. Today whole genome and exome sequencing are increasingly affordable and frequently used in genetic research. Because these techniques produce a vast amount of interpretable and non-interpretable data (i.e., data of unproven significance) about an individual, the issue of how to manage information generated by such technologies needs to be considered. However, the development of international ethical guidelines has not kept up with the rapid pace of technological progress. Indeed developments in genomic biobanking also challenge the duty to disclose research results.

Much biomedical research cannot be performed without recruiting human subjects. Increasingly, volunteer registries are being developed to assist researchers with this challenging task. Yet, volunteer registries raise confidentiality issues. Having recently developed a registry of volunteers, the authors searched for normative guidance on how to implement the principle of confidentiality. The authors found that the protection of confidentiality in registries are based on the 10 key elements which are elaborated in detail in the Canadian Standards Association Model Code. This paper describes how these 10 detailed key principles can be used during the developmental stages of volunteer registries.

The importance of making genomic data available for future research is now widely recognized among the scientific community and policymakers. In this era of shared responsibility for data dissemination, improved patient care through research depends on the development of powerful and secure data-sharing systems. As part of the concerted effort to share research resources, the project entitled Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) makes effective data sharing through the development of a data-sharing framework, one of its goals. The secondary uses of data from PERSPECTIVE for future research promise to enhance our knowledge of breast cancer etiologies without duplicating data-gathering efforts. Despite its benefit for research, we recognize the ethical challenges of data sharing on the local, national, and international levels. The effective management of ethical approvals for projects spanning across jurisdictions, the return of results to research participants, and research incentives and recognition for data production, are but a few pressing issues that need to be properly addressed. We discuss how we managed these issues and suggest how ongoing innovations might help to facilitate data sharing in future genomic research projects.

Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women’s attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.

Ad hoc approaches mix and match existing components Historically, research ethics committees (RECs) have been guided by ethical principles regarding human experimentation intended to protect participants from physical harms and to provide assurance as to their interests and welfare. But research that analyzes large aggregate data sets, possibly including detailed clinical and genomic information of individuals, may require different assessment. At the same time, growth in international data-sharing collaborations adds stress to a system already under fire for subjecting multisite research to replicate ethics reviews, which can inhibit research without improving the quality of human subjects' protections ( 1 , 2 ). “Top-down” national regulatory approaches exist for ethics review across multiple sites in domestic research projects [e.g., United States ( 3 , 4 ), Canada ( 5 ), United Kingdom, ( 6 ), Australia ( 7 )], but their applicability for data-intensive international research has not been considered. Stakeholders around the world have thus been developing “bottom-up” solutions. We scrutinize five such ef orts involving multiple countries around the world, including resource-poor settings (table S1), to identify models that could inform a framework for mutual recognition of international ethics review (i.e., the acceptance by RECs of the outcome of each other's review).