The evolution of biobanking best practices

Vaught, Jim; Lockhart, Nicole C.

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2012.04.030

Cited by 103 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cancer biospecimens are increasingly sourced from formal cancer biobanks (Simeon-Dubach and Watson 2014;Vaught and Lockhart 2012). We have previously defined a cancer biobank as a standardised, not-for-profit collection of human biospecimens with associated data records and consent process for the purpose of distribution to cancer researchers for population or disease-specific research (Rush et al 2015).…”

Section: Overview Of Cancer Biobanksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the use of inadequate biospecimens in research is also unethical, leading to wasted research resources (Vaught and Lockhart 2012) and downstream consequences for patients and healthcare systems. Improving our understanding and assessment of biospecimen quality, and of how communication between biobanks and researchers can improve biospecimen use, could have a substantial impact upon the validity of research obtained from human biospecimens, and thereby accelerate the translation of research results to patients.…”

Section: Summary and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are concerns that a substantial proportion of published research data is not reproducible, which may partially explain the frequent failure to translate pre-clinical results to clinical care. High-quality cancer biospecimens are needed for robust, reproducible research findings, with most researchers obtaining these specimens from cancer biobanks or tumour banks. This review provides an overview of the types of quality control (QC) activities conducted within cancer biobanks that pertain to biospecimen quality and of biospecimen quality reporting tools, including SPREC and BRISQ. We examine how QC assay results and other biospecimen data are communicated from biobanks to researchers, and whether these activities lead to improved biospecimen quality reporting within the literature and/or to improved research outcomes. We also discuss operational factors that limit QC activities within biobanks and evidence gaps requiring further research. In summary, whereas the provision of quality biospecimens is a common aim of cancer biobanks, QC activities remain underreported and are rarely discussed in the literature, compared with other aspects of biobank operations. Further research is required to determine how biobanks can most efficiently optimise biospecimen quality, and how communication between biobanks and researchers can be improved.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Cancer Biobanksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maintaining those systems can be financially and administratively burdensome for registries and biorepositories. 58 …”

Section: Categorical Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biorepositories

Greenberg¹,

Christian²,

Henry³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not properly accounting for pre-analytical variables yields inaccurate results or systematic biases [13,14]. Standardization requires minimizing multiple confounding factors, including prior to collection, within specimens, and during handling, processing, and storage.…”

Section: Pre-analytical Variables For Mirnasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in, variability out: best practice recommendations to standardize pre-analytical variables in the detection of circulating and tissue microRNAs

Khan

Lieberman

Lockwood

2017

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

microRNAs (miRNAs) hold promise as biomarkers for a variety of disease processes and for determining cell differentiation. These short RNA species are robust, survive harsh treatment and storage conditions and may be extracted from blood and tissue. Pre-analytical variables are critical confounders in the analysis of miRNAs: we elucidate these and identify best practices for minimizing sample variation in blood and tissue specimens. Preanalytical variables addressed include patient-intrinsic variation, time and temperature from sample collection to storage or processing, processing methods, contamination by cells and blood components, RNA extraction method, normalization, and storage time/conditions. For circulating miRNAs, hemolysis and blood cell contamination significantly affect profiles; samples should be processed within 2 h of collection; ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) is preferred while heparin should be avoided; samples should be "double spun" or filtered; room temperature or 4 °C storage for up to 24 h is preferred; miRNAs are stable for at least 1 year at -20 °C or -80 °C. For tissuebased analysis, warm ischemic time should be < 1 h; cold ischemic time (4 °C) < 24 h; common fixative used for all specimens; formalin fix up to 72 h prior to processing; enrich for cells of interest; validate candidate biomarkers with in situ visualization. Most importantly, all specimen types should have standard and common workflows with careful documentation of relevant pre-analytical variables.

show abstract

The evolution of biobanking best practices

Cited by 103 publications

References 37 publications

A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality

A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality

Biorepositories

Variability in, variability out: best practice recommendations to standardize pre-analytical variables in the detection of circulating and tissue microRNAs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About