RÉSUMÉ
In the personalized medicine era, utilizing paraffin blocks in pathology archives for investigating human diseases has come into the limelight. This archived material with clinical data will reduce the research time and could prevent new patient recruitment to obtain tissue for research. However, the clause indicating the necessity of consent from human material providers in the Korean Bioethics and Safety Act has made the Institutional Review Board (IRB) deny permission to use paraffin blocks for research without consent, and alternatively to get the same before starting an experiment. Written consent may be waived off in studies using paraffin blocks with anonymous status or conditions not linked to personal information by applying the paragraph 3, article 16 of the current Bioethics and Safety Act. Also, the IRB should recommend researchers to preserve the blocks as medical records of patients in long-term archives.
Sujet(s)
Humains , Anonymes et pseudonymes , Bioéthique , Comités d'éthique de la recherche , Dossiers médicaux , Paraffine , Anatomopathologie , Sélection de patients , Médecine de précisionRÉSUMÉ
Efficient management of human tissue samples is a critical issue; the supply of samples is unable to satisfy the current demands for research. Lack of informed consent is also an ethical problem. One of the goals of the 2012 revision of Korea's Bioethics and Safety Act was to implement regulations that govern the management of human tissue samples. To remain competitive, medical institutions must prepare for these future changes. In this report, we review two tissue management models that are currently in use; model 1 is the most common system utilized by hospitals in Korea and model 2 is implemented by some of the larger institutions. We also propose three alternative models that offer advantages over the systems currently in use. Model 3 is a multi-bank model that protects the independence of physicians and pathologists. Model 4 utilizes a comprehensive single bioresource bank; although in this case, the pathologists gain control of the samples, which may make it difficult to implement. Model 5, which employs a bioresource utilization steering committee (BUSC), is viable to implement and still maintains the advantages of Model 4. To comply with the upcoming law, we suggest that physicians and pathologists in an institution should collaborate to choose one of the improved models of tissue management system that best fits for their situation.