Skip to main content

Tissue vs Liquid Biopsies for Cancer Detection: Ethical Issues

Abstract

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in developed countries, making it a global public health problem. In this scenario, early detection is the key to successful treatment. Tissue biopsy, the current gold standard for cancer diagnosis, offers reliable results, but it is feasible only when the mass becomes detectable. On the other hand liquid biopsy, a promising experimental system, not yet implemented within clinical practice, allows early detection as its functioning relies on the analysis of body fluids. Yet, its results are less reliable if compared to those of tissue biopsy as, for instance, false positives and false negatives might occur. Despite technical features, the tradeoff between a reliable diagnosis available at a later time and a potentially less reliable diagnosis available at an early stage poses significant ethical challenges in the clinical scenario which involve, among other aspects, informed consent, communication, and patient-physician encounter.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, cancers of the mid-lung and retroperitoneum.

  2. 2.

    According to a study conducted at Anderson Cancer Center by Overman and colleagues (Overman et al. 2013), investigative biopsies registered complications rates of 17.1% for thoracic biopsies and 1.6% for abdominal/pelvic ones. This means that tissue biopsies are not free from adverse events and may jeopardize patients’ safety, for example, in cases of sampling of neoplastic masses surrounding important vessels or in specific locations of the brain. See also Diaz and Bardelli (2014). And Siravegna et al. (2017).

  3. 3.

    There are two sources of tumour DNA in the blood: one is ctDNA and the other is CTCs, namely circulating tumour cells. CTCs represent “intact, often viable, cells that can be purified from blood by virtue of physicochemical characteristics or cell surface molecules that distinguish them from normal blood cells” (Bettegowda et al. 2014, 224).

  4. 4.

    For example, low-grade in situ carcinomas (a possible precursor of carcinoma), are often treated as invasive tumours because diagnostic tools are not able to predict with reliable precision their further development. Actually, once the tumour (or prospective tumour) is detected, the only chance to know whether it had been overdiagnosed, would be to leave it untreated. Yet, this path entails several risks, because if the tumour had not been the object of overdiagnosis, treatment at an advanced stage would lessen the probability of positive outcome.

References

  1. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  2. Bettegowda, C., M. Sausen, R.J. Leary, et al. 2014. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Science Translational Medicine 6(224): 224ra24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biesecker, B.B., M.D. Schwartz, and T.M. Marteau. 2013. Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: A systematic review. American Journal of Health Behavior 37(3): 351–359.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blocker, D.E., L.S. Romocki, K.B. Thomas, et al. 2006. Knowledge, beliefs and barriers associated with prostate cancer prevention and screening behaviors among African-American men. Journal of the National Medical Association 98(8): 1286–1295.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Croswell, J.M., D.F. Ransohoff, and B.S. Kramer. 2010. Principles of cancer screening: Lessons from history and study design issues. Seminars in Oncology 37(3): 202–215.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Diaz, L.A., and A. Bardelli. 2014. Liquid biopsies: Genotyping circulating tumor DNA. Journal of Clinical Oncology 32(6): 579–586.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferretti, G., A. Linkeviciute, and G. Boniolo. 2017. Comprehending and communicating statistics in breast cancer screening. Ethical implications and potential solutions. In Medical ethics, prediction, and prognosis, edited by M. Gadebusch Bondio, F. Sporing, and J-S. Gordon30-42. Routledge.

  8. Gerlinger M., A.J. Rowan, S. Horswell, et al. 2012. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. New England Journal of Medicine 366(10): 883–892.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kinney, A.Y., C. Richards, S.W. Vernon, and V.G. Vogel. 1998. The effect of physician recommendation on enrolment in the breast cancer chemoprevention trial. Preventive Medicine 27(5 pt 1): 713–719.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Overman, M.J., J. Modak, S. Kopetz, et al. 2013. Use of research biopsies in clinical trials: Are risks and benefits adequately discussed? Journal of Clinical Oncology 31(1): 17–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Puliti D., S.W. Duffy, G. Miccinesi, et al. 2012. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: A literature review. Journal of Medical Screening 19(1): 42–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Siravegna, G., S. Marsoni, S. Siena, and A. Bardelli. 2017. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 14(9): 531-548.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ulrich C.M., S.J. Ratcliffe, G.R. Wallen, Q.P. Zhou, K. Knafl, and C. Grady. 2016. Cancer clinical trial participants’ assessment of risk and benefit. AJOB Empirical Bioethics 7(1): 8–16.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vogelstein B., N. Papadopoulos, V.E. Velculescu, et al. 2013. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339(6127): 1546–1558.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wegwarth, O., L.M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, W. Gaissmaier, and G. Gigerenzer. 2012. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 156(5): 340–349.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Welch, H. G., H.J. Passow. 2014. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Internal Medicine174(3): 448–454.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Mannelli.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannelli, C. Tissue vs Liquid Biopsies for Cancer Detection: Ethical Issues. Bioethical Inquiry 16, 551–557 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09944-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bioethics
  • Oncology Research
  • Liquid Biopsy
  • Informed consent