Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients

Context and objective Biobanks have become strategic resources for biomedical and genetic research. The aim of the present empirical qualitative study was to investigate how patients with cancer perceive and experience the process of donation to biobanks, focussing on the subjective meanings associated with their decisions when they are asked in a routine context to agree to their own biological specimens being used for research projects. Design A qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews to explore in depth the reasons why patients with cancer agree to participating in biobanking. Participants Nineteen patients (aged 28–82 years) being treated for colorectal cancer or leukaemia at a French cancer centre participated in this study. Results Contributing to biobanks was experienced here as a rewarding and empowering individual experience because of the psychological issues involved, such as feelings of hope associated with research, because it makes the relationship with researchers and clinicians less asymmetrical, revalorization of otherwise ‘wasted’ tissue, and also as an act of solidarity and reciprocity, which makes patients part of a community. Discussion and conclusion Patients seem to regard contributing to biobanks as an act of benevolence, which they are motivated to perform because of societal welfare considerations as well as the hope of subjective benefits. Knowledge about the patients’ perspective and of the psychological rewards associated with tumour donation should be taken into account by physicians and caregivers discussing this topic with their patients.     

A comparison of two modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy for peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective French study

Objectives:This prospective, observational, non-randomized multicentric study was conducted to compare efficiency and toxicity using different modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in early-stage peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:From 9 April to 11 December, 106 patients were treated according to the local equipment availability for peripheral NSCLC with SBRT: 68 by linear accelerator equipped for SBRT and 38 by Cyberknife^®. Multivariate analysis and propensity score analysis using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) were undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to non-randomization.Results:2-year local control rates were 97.0% (95% CI: [90.6%; 99.4%]) with SBRT by Linac vs 100% (95% CI: ([100%; 100%]) with Cyberknife^® (p = 0.2839). 2-year PFS and 2-year OS rates were 52.7% (95% CI [39.9%;64.0%]) versus 54.1% (95% CI [36.8; 68.6%]) (p = 0.8582) and 65.1% (95% CI: [51.9%; 75.5%] versus 83.9% (95% CI: [67.5%; 92.4%] (p = 0.0831) using Linac and Cyberknife^® respectively. Multivariate regression analysis indicates no significant effect of SBRT treatment type on PFS or OS. Local relapse could not be modeled due to the small number of events (n = 2). Acute and late toxicity rates were not significantly different. After IPTW adjustment, results were unchanged.Conclusions:No difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown after SBRT of peripheral NSCLC treatment using Linac or Cyberknife^®.Advances in knowledge:This is the first large prospective non-randomized study focusing on peripheral localized NSCLC comparing SBRT using an appropriately equipped linac with Cyberknife^®. No significant difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown in this situation.