Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Policy

EU data protection regulation—harming cancer research

The cancer community is deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of the current wording of the European Union (EU) draft Regulation on Data Protection, which may challenge the survival of retrospective clinical research, biobanking, and population-based cancer registries in the EU. This directive could negatively affect Europe's competitiveness in cancer research.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    De Angelis, R. et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 15, 23–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Speirs, V. & Morgan, A. Breast cancer: investment biobanking—increased returns from tissue samples. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 128–129 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Casali, P. Risks of the new EU data protection regulation: an ESMO position paper endorsed by the European oncology community. Ann. Oncol. 25, 1458–1461 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Rosmarin, D. et al. Genetic markers of toxicity from capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based regimens: investigation in the QUASAR2 study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1031–1039 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Church, D. et al. 'Toxgnostics': an unmet need in cancer medicine. Nat. Rev. Cancer 14, 440–445 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Salazar, R. et al. A gene expression signature to improve prognosis prediction of stage II and III colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 17–24 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Palles, C. et al. Germline mutations affecting the proofreading domains of POLE and POLD1 predispose to colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Nat. Genet. 45, 136–144 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Quirke, P. et al. Value of mismatch repair, KRAS and BRAF mutations in predicting recurrence and benefits from chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 1261–1270 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Gray, R. G. et al. Validation study of a quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 4611–4619 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Human Tissue Authority. Human Tissue Act 2004 [online], (2014).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Kerr.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kerr, D. EU data protection regulation—harming cancer research. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11, 563–564 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.148

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing