Free Access
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 28, Mars 2012
Génomique et recherche clinique en oncologie : approches de sciences humaines, économiques et sociales (SHES)
Page(s) 28 - 32
Section M/S Revues
Published online 09 April 2012
  1. Chabannon C, Lassailly F, Romain S, et al. Le réseau des centres de ressources biologiques (CRB) et tumorothèques de l’agglomération marseillaise. Med Sci (Paris) 2006 ; 22 (hors série n°1) : 26–31. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chabannon C, Honstettre A, Daufresne LM, et al. La publication de catalogues de collections d’échantillons biologiques par les tumorothèques. Bull Cancer 2010 ; 97 : 181–189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Reyrat E, Geneve J. Constitution d’un catalogue commun a plusieurs CRLCC : un projet de la FNCLCC. Med Sci (Paris) 2006 ; 22 (hors série n°1) : 35–38. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mancini J, Pellegrini I, Viret F, et al. Consent for biobanking: assessing the understanding and views of cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 ; 103 : 154–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hall MA, Camacho F, Lawlor JS, et al. Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med Care 2006 ; 44 : 1048–1053. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pellegrini I, Chabannon C, Mancini J, et al. Informed consent for biobanks and research: what make sense for cancer patients? Psychol Health 2009 ; 24 : 307–308. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006 ; 7 : 141–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jenkins V, Farewell D, Batt L, et al. The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2010 ; 103 : 1801–1807. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Julian-Reynier C, Geneve J, Dalenc F, et al. Assessment of care by breast cancer patients participating or not participating in a randomized controlled trial: a report with the Patients’ Committee for clinical trials of the Ligue nationale contre le cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007 ; 25 : 3038–3044. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Minasian LM, O’Mara AM. Accrual to clinical trials: let’s look at the physicians. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 ; 103 : 357–358. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferguson PR. Patients’ experiences and views of clinical trials. Med Law 2001 ; 20 : 143–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mancini J, Geneve J, Dalenc F, et al. Decision-making and breast cancer clinical trials: how experience challenges attitudes. Contemp Clin Trials 2007 ; 28 : 684–694. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown RF, Shuk E, Leighl N, et al. Enhancing decision making about participation in cancer clinical trials: development of a question prompt list. Support Care Cancer 2010 ; 19 : 1227–1238. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med 2002 ; 162 : 1457–1462. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Keogh B. European biobanks forge cross-border ties. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 ; 103 : 1429–1431. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin Genet 006 ; 69 : 393–398. [Google Scholar]
  17. Axler RE, Irvine R, Lipworth W, et al. Why might people donate tissue for cancer research? Insights from organ/tissue/blood donation and clinical research. Pathobiology 2008 ; 75 : 323–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Allen J, McNamara B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 2011 ; 25 : 155–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Moutel G, de Montgolfier S, Meningaud JP, Herve C. Bio-libraries and DNA storage: assessment of patient perception of information. Med Law 2001 ; 20 : 193–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, et al. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet 2009 ; 149A : 188–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stevens T, Ahmedzai SH. Why do breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised trials and how do they feel about their decision later: a prospective, longitudinal, in-depth interview study. Patient Educ Couns 2004 ; 52 : 341–348. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening? J Clin Oncol 2007 ; 25 : e13–e14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Stjernschantz Forsberg J, Hansson MG, Eriksson S. Biobank research: who benefits from individual consent? Br Med J 2011 ; 343 : d5647. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, et al. A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples. Br J Cancer 2009 ; 101 : 1505–1512. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ransohoff DF, Gourlay ML. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010 ; 28 : 698–704. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Maraninchi D. Valeurs et valorisation des tumorothèques. Med Sci (Paris) 2006 ; 22 (hors série n°1) : 4. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. McMurter B, Parker L, Fraser RB, et al. Parental views on tissue banking in pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011 ; 57 :1217–1221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 2009 ; 85 : 643–654. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Watson RW, Kay EW, Smith D. Integrating biobanks: addressing the practical and ethical issues to deliver a valuable tool for cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer 2010 ; 10 : 646–651. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Skloot R. La vie immortelle d’Henrietta Lacks. Paris : Calmann-Lévy, 2011 : 440 p. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.