Biobanks and archived datasets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings (IFs) and individual research results (IRRs) of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using “biobank” here to refer to both collections of samples and collections of data). This paper reports recommendations from a 2-year, NIH-funded project. The authors analyze responsibilities to manage return of IFs and IRRs in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). They suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When re-identification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities: to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) re-identify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. The authors suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and that are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. The paper specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks and biobanks already in existence.
18F-NaF is a promising new approach for the assessment of coronary artery plaque biology. Prospective studies with clinical outcomes are now needed to assess whether coronary 18F-NaF uptake represents a novel marker of plaque vulnerability, recent plaque rupture, and future cardiovascular risk. (An Observational PET/CT Study Examining the Role of Active Valvular Calcification and Inflammation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis; NCT01358513).
Background—
The pathophysiology of aortic stenosis is incompletely understood, and the relative contributions of valvular calcification and inflammation to disease progression are unknown.
Methods and Results—
Patients with aortic sclerosis and mild, moderate, and severe stenosis were compared prospectively with age- and sex-matched control subjects. Aortic valve severity was determined by echocardiography. Calcification and inflammation in the aortic valve were assessed by 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake with the use of positron emission tomography. One hundred twenty-one subjects (20 controls; 20 aortic sclerosis; 25 mild, 33 moderate, and 23 severe aortic stenosis) were administered both 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG. Quantification of tracer uptake within the valve demonstrated excellent interobserver repeatability with no fixed or proportional biases and limits of agreement of ±0.21 (18F-NaF) and ±0.13 (18F-FDG) for maximum tissue-to-background ratios. Activity of both tracers was higher in patients with aortic stenosis than in control subjects (18F-NaF: 2.87±0.82 versus 1.55±0.17; 18F-FDG: 1.58±0.21 versus 1.30±0.13; both
P
<0.001). 18F-NaF uptake displayed a progressive rise with valve severity (
r
2
=0.540,
P
<0.001), with a more modest increase observed for 18F-FDG (
r
2
=0.218,
P
<0.001). Among patients with aortic stenosis, 91% had increased 18F-NaF uptake (>1.97), and 35% had increased 18F-FDG uptake (>1.63). A weak correlation between the activities of these tracers was observed (
r
2
=0.174,
P
<0.001).
Conclusions—
Positron emission tomography is a novel, feasible, and repeatable approach to the evaluation of valvular calcification and inflammation in patients with aortic stenosis. The frequency and magnitude of increased tracer activity correlate with disease severity and are strongest for 18F-NaF.
Clinical Trial Registration—
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
. Unique identifier: NCT01358513.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.