Forsaking cures for cancer: why are we discarding the tumour biospecimens of most patients?

Craig Gedye and Jennifer Fleming
Med J Aust 2016; 204 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/mja15.00961
Published online: 2 May 2016

Discarding patients’ cancer samples because of problems with consent processes forgoes potential advances in cancer research, ignores public intent and squanders unique bioresources

Cancers are highly variable — between different types of cancer, between different patients’ cancers and even between different cancer cells within an individual patient’s cancer.1 A critical challenge facing cancer research and therapy is to understand and overcome the heterogeneity of each patient’s cancer. Resected tumours and other samples donated by patients with cancer provide invaluable bioresources for the study of cancer heterogeneity. While animal models and in vitro studies generate therapeutic hypotheses, only confirmation in human cancers can ratify targets as relevant to pursue into the clinic.

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW
  • 2 School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW
  • 3 Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 4 Sydney Catalyst, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. McGranahan N, Swanton C. Biological and therapeutic impact of intratumor heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Cancer Cell 2015; 27: 15-26.
  • 2. Welberry H, Salagame U, Wejbora P, et al. A comprehensive review of cancer-related biobanks in New South Wales. Sydney: Cancer Institute NSW, 2009. (accessed Jan 2016).
  • 3. National Health and Medical Research Council. Biobanks information paper (2010). Canberra: NHMRC, 2010. (accessed Jan 2016).
  • 4. National Health and Medical Research Council. National biobanking strategy. Canberra: NHMRC, 2012. (accessed Jan 2016).
  • 5. Olver IN. Opting in for opt-out consent. Med J Aust 2014; 200: 201-202. <MJA full text>
  • 6. Mitchell RJ, Cameron CM, McClure RJ, Williamson AM. Data linkage capabilities in Australia: practical issues identified by a Population Health Research Network ‘Proof of Concept project’. Aust N Z J Public Health 2015; 39: 319-325.
  • 7. National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007) - updated May 2015. Canberra: NHMRC, 2015. (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 8. Chalmers D. Privacy and biobank research: weighing private and public interests. J Law Info Sci 2006; 3. (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 9. Hoeyer K. The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 2008; 25: 429-452.
  • 10. Australian Law Reform Commission. Essentially yours: the protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC report 96). Canberra: ALRC, 2003. (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian hospital statistics 2010–11. Chapter 10: Surgery in Australian hospitals (AIHW Cat. No. HSE 117). Canberra: AIHW, 2012. (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 12. Clément B, Yuille M, Zaltoukal K, et al. Public biobanks: calculation and recovery of costs. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 261fs45.
  • 13. Vaught J, Kelly A, Hewitt R. A review of international biobanks and networks: success factors and key benchmarks. Biopreserv Biobank 2009; 7: 143-150.
  • 14. Karikios DJ, Schofield D, Salkeld G, et al. Rising cost of anticancer drugs in Australia. Intern Med J 2014; 44: 458-463.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.