A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine which consent procedure patients prefer for use of stored tissue for research purposes and what the effects of consent procedures on actual consenting behaviour are. METHODS: We offered 264 cancer patients three different consent procedures: 'one-time general consent' (asked written informed consent), 'opt-out plus' (had the opportunity to opt out by a form), or the standard hospital procedure (control group). The two intervention groups received a specific leaflet about research with residual tissue and verbal information. The control group only received a general hospital leaflet including opt-out information, which is the procedure currently in use. Subsequently, all patients received a questionnaire to examine their preferences for consent procedures. RESULTS: In all, 99% of patients consented to research with their residual tissue. In the 'one-time consent' group 85% sent back their consent form. Patients preferred 'opt-out plus' (43%) above 'one-time consent' (34%) or 'opt-out' (16%), whereas 8% indicated that they did not need to receive information about research with residual tissues or be given the opportunity to make a choice. CONCLUSIONS: The 'opt-out plus' procedure, which places fewer demands on administrative resources than 'one-time consent', can also address the information needs of patients.

Volume-controlled vs no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.

It is unknown whether there are any clinically relevant differences between volume-controlled (<30-50 ml/24h across trials) vs no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery on outcomes such as seroma formation, wound infection or length of hospital stay. Randomised controlled trials comparing volume-controlled drainage vs no or short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery were identified systematically using Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane library. Trial data were reviewed and extracted independently by two reviewers in a standardised unblinded manner. Six randomised controlled trials which included a total of 561 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Patients randomised to volume-controlled drainage were less likely to develop clinically relevant seromas compared to patients randomised to no/short-term drainage. There was, however, no difference in wound infections between patients treated with volume-controlled drainage and patients with no or short-term drainage. Patients randomised to volume-controlled drainage stayed significantly longer in hospital than patients randomised to no/short-term drainage. Based on available evidence, clinically relevant seromas occur more frequently in patients treated with no/short-term drainage. However, no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection does not lead to an increase in wound infections and is associated with shorter hospital stay.