Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp 899–906 | Cite as

Patients’ willingness to participate in a breast cancer biobank at screening mammogram

  • Christoph I. Lee
  • Lawrence W. Bassett
  • Mei Leng
  • Sally L. Maliski
  • Bryan B. Pezeshki
  • Colin J. Wells
  • Carol M. Mangione
  • Arash Naeim


To characterize patients’ willingness to donate a biospecimen for future research as part of a breast cancer-related biobank involving a general screening population. We performed a prospective cross-sectional study of 4,217 women aged 21–89 years presenting to our facilities for screening mammogram between December 2010 and October 2011. This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by our institutional review board. We collected data on patients’ interest in and actual donation of a biospecimen, motivators and barriers to donating, demographic information, and personal breast cancer risk factors. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify patient-level characteristics associated with an increased likelihood to donate. Mean patient age was 57.8 years (SD 11.1 years). While 66.0 % (2,785/4,217) of patients were willing to donate blood or saliva during their visit, only 56.4 % (2,378/4,217) actually donated. Women with a college education (OR = 1.27, p = 0.003), older age (OR = 1.02, p < 0.001), previous breast biopsy (OR = 1.23, p = 0.012), family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.23, p = 0.004), or a comorbidity (OR = 1.22, p = 0.014) were more likely to donate. Asian-American women were significantly less likely to donate (OR = 0.74, p = 0.005). The major reason for donating was to help all future patients (42.3 %) and the major reason for declining donation was privacy concerns (22.3 %). A large proportion of women participating in a breast cancer screening registry are willing to donate blood or saliva to a biobank. Among minority participants, Asian-American women are less likely to donate and further qualitative research is required to identify novel active recruitment strategies to insure their involvement.


Biospecimen Biobank Breast cancer Screening Patient willingness 



Christoph I. Lee, MD, MSHS received support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities LRP. Carol Mangione, MD, MSPH received support from the UCLA Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research Center for Health Improvement of Minority Elderly (RCMAR/CHIME) under NIH/NIA Grant P30-AG021684 and the NIH/NCATS UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR000124. Arash Naeim, MD, PhD received support from the UC Office of the President and the Safeway Foundation in support of the Athena Breast Network, and by a grant from the California Breast Cancer Research Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH and other funding organizations.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no financial conflicts of interest related to this study.


  1. 1.
    Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS (2003) A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 422(6934):835–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L (2007) The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med 9(10):665–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ozdemir V, Williams-Jones B, Cooper DM, Someya T, Godard B (2007) Mapping translational research in personalized therapeutics: from molecular markers to health policy. Pharmacogenomics 8(2):177–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hewitt RE (2011) Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol 23(1):112–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, Harris EL (2005) Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 143(5):362–379. doi: 143/5/362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guttmacher AE, Collins FS (2002) Genomic medicine—a primer. N Engl J Med 347(19):1512–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baer AR, Smith ML, Collyar D, Peppercorn J (2010) Issues surrounding biospecimen collection and use in clinical trials. J Oncol Pract 6(4):206–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khoury MJ, Millikan R, Little J, Gwinn M (2004) The emergence of epidemiology in the genomics age. Int J Epidemiol 33(5):936–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C (2007) Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Community Genet 10(3):147–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsti A, Hemminki K (2011) Breast cancer genomics based on biobanks. Methods Mol Biol 675:375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Syrjakoski K, Vahteristo P, Eerola H, Tamminen A, Kivinummi K, Sarantaus L, Holli K, Blomqvist C, Kallioniemi OP, Kainu T, Nevanlinna H (2000) Population-based study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in 1035 unselected Finnish breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(18):1529–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, Iliadou A, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, Pukkala E, Skytthe A, Hemminki K (2000) Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med 343(2):78–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM (2006) Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin Genet 69(5):393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobbs SK, Shi G, Homer R, Harsh G, Atlas SW, Bednarski MD (2003) Magnetic resonance image-guided proteomics of human glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 18(5):530–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang YS, Guccione S, Bednarski MD (2003) Comparing genomic and histologic correlations to radiographic changes in tumors: a murine SCC VII model study. Acad Radiol 10(10):1165–1175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsti A, Jin Q, Altieri A, Johansson R, Wagner K, Enquist K, Grzybowska E, Pamula J, Pekala W, Hallmans G, Lenner P, Hemminki K (2007) Polymorphisms in the KDR and POSTN genes: association with breast cancer susceptibility and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101(1):83–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin Q, Hemminki K, Enquist K, Lenner P, Grzybowska E, Klaes R, Henriksson R, Chen B, Pamula J, Pekala W, Zientek H, Rogozinska-Szczepka J, Utracka-Hutka B, Hallmans G, Forsti A (2005) Vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms in relation to breast cancer development and prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 11(10):3647–3653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lei H, Hemminki K, Altieri A, Johansson R, Enquist K, Hallmans G, Lenner P, Forsti A (2007) Promoter polymorphisms in matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors: few associations with breast cancer susceptibility and progression. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103(1):61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Critchley CR, Nicol D, Otlowski MF, Stranger MJ (2010) Predicting intention to biobank: a national survey. Eur J Public Health 22(1):139–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Renaud M (2004) Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 58(9):1689–1697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K (2008) Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 10(11):831–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Axler RE, Irvine R, Lipworth W, Morrell B, Kerridge IH (2008) Why might people donate tissue for cancer research? Insights from organ/tissue/blood donation and clinical research. Pathobiology 75(6):323–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Hewison J (1998) The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ 317(7167):1209–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins V, Brennan C, Sawtell M, Moynihan C, Souhami RL (1998) Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer 34(10):1554–1559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nurgat ZA, Craig W, Campbell NC, Bissett JD, Cassidy J, Nicolson MC (2005) Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 92(6):1001–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paskett ED, DeGraffinreid C, Tatum CM, Margitic SE (1996) The recruitment of African-Americans to cancer prevention and control studies. Prev Med 25(5):547–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beskow LM, Burke W, Merz JF, Barr PA, Terry S, Penchaszadeh VB, Gostin LO, Gwinn M, Khoury MJ (2001) Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286(18):2315–2321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N (2004) Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scand J Public Health 32(3):224–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N (2005) The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch Intern Med 165(1):97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eriksson S, Helgesson G (2005) Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet 13(9):1071–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tu SP, Chen H, Chen A, Lim J, May S, Drescher C (2005) Clinical trials: understanding and perceptions of female Chinese-American cancer patients. Cancer 104(12 Suppl):2999–3005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nguyen TT, Somkin CP, Ma Y (2005) Participation of Asian-American women in cancer chemoprevention research: physician perspectives. Cancer 104(12 Suppl):3006–3014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nguyen TT, Somkin CP, Ma Y, Fung LC, Nguyen T (2005) Participation of Asian-American women in cancer treatment research: a pilot study. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 35:102–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pentz RD, Billot L, Wendler D (2006) Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A 140(7):733–739PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan P, Hilsenbeck SG, Miller FG, Emanuel EJ, Wendler D (2005) Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want? Arch Intern Med 165(6):652–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wendler D, Emanuel E (2002) The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med 162(13):1457–1462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nilstun T, Hermeren G (2006) Human tissue samples and ethics–attitudes of the general public in Sweden to biobank research. Med Health Care Philos 9(1):81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG (2006) Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Public Health 16(4):433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Calderon JL, Baker RS, Fabrega H, Conde JG, Hays RD, Fleming E, Norris K (2006) An ethno-medical perspective on research participation: a qualitative pilot study. MedGenMed 8(2):23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gavaler JS, Bonham-Leyba M, Castro CA, Harman SE (1999) The Oklahoma Postmenopausal Women’s Health Study: recruitment and characteristics of American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Caucasian women. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 23(2):220–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moorman PG, Skinner CS, Evans JP, Newman B, Sorenson JR, Calingaert B, Susswein L, Crankshaw TS, Hoyo C, Schildkraut JM (2004) Racial differences in enrolment in a cancer genetics registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(8):1349–1354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McQuillan GM, Porter KS, Agelli M, Kington R (2003) Consent for genetic research in a general population: the NHANES experience. Genet Med 5(1):35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mandelblatt J, Kaufman E, Sheppard VB, Pomeroy J, Kavanaugh J, Canar J, Pallandre L, Cullen J, Huerta E (2005) Breast cancer prevention in community clinics: will low-income Latina patients participate in clinical trials? Prev Med 40(6):611–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph I. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence W. Bassett
    • 3
  • Mei Leng
    • 4
  • Sally L. Maliski
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Bryan B. Pezeshki
    • 6
  • Colin J. Wells
    • 3
  • Carol M. Mangione
    • 2
    • 4
  • Arash Naeim
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiological SciencesDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.UCLA School of NursingLos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer CenterLos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Department of Health ServicesFielding School of Public Health at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations