Affiliation

• ¹University Hospital Heidelberg, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
• ²Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
• ³DKTK, German Cancer Consortium DKFZ Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Corresponding Author

Prof. Dr. Sarah Schott, MD, PhD, University Hospital Heidelberg, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany, DKTK, DKFZ Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld,Heidelberg, Germany, Tel: +49 6221 560/ Fax +49 6221 5633997; E-mail: sarah.schott@med.uni-heidelberg.de

Citation

Ness, J., et al. Participation in Cancer Biobanking at a German Department for Obstetrics and Gynecology (2018) J Gynecol Neonatal Biol 4(1): 1- 3.

Copy rights

© 2018 Schott, S. This is an Open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Keywords

Abstract

  Biobanking is an essential requirement for the success of translational oncology. The demand for biomaterials for several studies is often large and results in dissatisfaction. Confirmed consent remains the key issue to providing biobanking material. In this study, we evaluated the willingness of patients undergoing surgery to participate in biobanking studies and reasons for exclusion. The aim of this study is to outline the pitfalls in terms of physician attempts to gain biomaterial. Results will contribute to optimized recruitment and an understanding of patient reservations.
  Patients attending elective surgery were evaluated April - June 2016 for potential inclusion in several biobanking studies and were checked in respect to tumor size and origin. During their informed consent consultation, 527 patients were screened. The median age was 48 years. Of the 527 patients, 120 were eligible for biobanking. The reasons for exclusion were: 264 patients with no oncological surgery, 46 with a tumor too small for biobanking, 19 with second surgery, and 78 patients with a tumor not suitable for any biobanking study. Of the 120 included patients, 92 suffered from breast cancer, 21 had ovarian cancer, one had carcinoma of the cervix, and another six had endometrial cancers. 29 of the patients had undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 120 patients, 109 agreed to participate in biobanking. Mostly, patients are motivated to contribute to biobanking. Neoadjuvante chemotherapy limits participation in biobanking due to missing residual tumor mass. The improvement of systemic treatment in terms of breast cancer might need to focus on core cut biopsies.