TuBaFrost 2: Standardising tissue collection and quality control procedures for a European virtual frozen tissue bank network

Morente, Manuel; Mager, R.; Alonso, Soledad; Pezzella, Francesco; Spatz, Alan; Knox, Kirstine A.; Kerr, David; Dinjens, Winand N.M.; Oosterhuis, J. Wolter; Lam, King H.; Oomen, M.H.A.; Damme, B Van; Vijver, Marc J. van de; Boven, Hester van; Kerjaschki, Dontscho; Pammer, Johannes; Löpez‐Guerrero, José Antonio; Bosch, Antonio Llombart; Carbone, Antonino; Gloghini, Annunziata; Teodorović, Ivana; Isabelle, Maripier; Passioukov, A.; Lejeune, S.; Therasse, Patrick; Veen, Evert-Ben van; Ratcliffe, Chris; Riegman, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2006.04.029

Cited by 82 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over recent years, tissue banks established in single institutions have also begun to coalesce, or amalgamate, into larger national or international biobanking efforts [26][27][28]. This movement to collaborative biobanks especially requires the standardization of tissue procurement and storage procedures to ensure that biomolecules of a consistent quality can be isolated or measured in tissues collected from multiple sources [29,30].…”

Section: Research Biorepositories: Vehicles For Biomarker Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular determinants of outcomes: Linking tissue banks to outcomes databases

Bathe

2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, most outcomes research has focused on defining the clinicopathological determinants of outcomes. More recently, it has become apparent that the molecular features of tumor (as well as the genetic makeup of the patient) significantly influence outcomes, including responsiveness to therapy and prognosis. In view of this, there is a need for more research on the molecular determinants of outcomes. Research biorepositories are important vehicles for this type of research and they could potentially accelerate this work. For biomarker research to affect patient care, it is critical to effectively link patient outcomes data with descriptions of the molecular features of tumors. Effective linkage of outcomes data with tissue banks will dramatically accelerate biomarker research.

show abstract

Section: Research Biorepositories: Vehicles For Biomarker Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular determinants of outcomes: Linking tissue banks to outcomes databases

Bathe

2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Developing separate SOPs based on the lack of (or variable) best practice documentation can lead to interbiobank variations in pre-analytical handling of biospecimens (Kiehntopf and Krawczak 2011;Morente et al 2006;Yuille et al 2010). Biobank networking links can encourage a greater focus on biospecimen quality (Meir et al 2014) via the use of best practice protocols (Catchpoole et al 2007).…”

Section: Biobank Network As a Means Of Improving Standardisation Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, funding for the Canadian Tumour Repository Network (CTRNet) is restricted to the provision of network activities, such as certification programmes, SOPs and biobanking policies . Biobank networking confers advantages to researchers by providing capacity to access larger sample numbers and increasing experimental statistical power (Asslaber and Zatloukal 2007), and to funding bodies through more effective use of infrastructure and resources (Kiehntopf and Krawczak 2011;Morente et al 2006;Zika and Defrasne 2010). For example, a networked biobank hub model may allow hiring and cross-training of dedicated staff, as well as sharing of high-cost equipment (Simeon-Dubach and Watson 2014).…”

Section: Biobank Network As a Means Of Improving Standardisation Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Methodology requirements dealt with time of ischemia, selection-freezing-storage processes and shipment according to international guidelines [7,8] . Indications and requirements regarding the design of databases capable of complying with the current legislation and necessary interconnections with other regions, as well as a central national database, were also included in the consensus documents.…”

Section: Tumour Bank Networking: the Spanish Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tumour Banking: The Spanish Design

2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Spain, as in most developed countries, a large number of private or public institutions keep biorepositories of human tumour samples. In fact, most of the currently accepted oncological entities were described in the 20th century by a clinical-pathological approach based on the study of tumours collected through collaborations between clinicians and pathologists. In parallel, and almost without effective connections with the clinical setting, basic researchers have produced a plethora of data, focusing on the main cancer basic mechanisms which mostly use cell lines and animal models.The last decade of the 20th century was the scenario of a biotechnological revolution, characterised not only by new methods for genomic and proteomic studies but also by being able to effectively and efficiently transfer this technology to many research centres in the developed world as well as to its clinical setting. These technical developments have renewed the need for high-quality tissue samples, especially in an era when this technology is of increasing clinical value to [1-3] :• Identify new parameters of clinical value, therefore demanding large-scale molecular studies with large numbers of cases.• Transfer knowledge from basic to clinical research, which requires homogeneous tissue-sampling protocols for multi-centre studies.• Confirm results obtained in the animal models and human cell lines, which requires providing human samples of clinical origin to basic research groups. Key WordsBiobank ؒ Biorepository ؒ Tumour bank ؒ Tumour bank network ؒ Translational research AbstractIn the last decade the technical advances in high throughput techniques to analyze DNA, RNA and proteins have had a potential major impact on prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of many human diseases. Key pieces in this process, mainly thinking about the future, are tumour banks and tumour bank networks. To face these challenges, diverse suitable models and designs can be developed. The current article presents the development of a nationwide design of tumour banks in Spain based on a network of networks, specially focusing on its harmonization efforts mainly regarding technical procedures, ethical requirements, unified quality control policy and unique sample identification. We also describe our most important goals for the next years. This model does not correspond to a central tumour bank, but to a cooperative and coordinated network of national and regional networks. Independently from the network in which it is included, sample collections reside in their original institution, where it can be used for further clinical diagnosis, teaching and research activities of each independent hospital. The herein described 'network of networks' functional model could be useful for other countries and/or international tumour bank activities.

show abstract

TuBaFrost 2: Standardising tissue collection and quality control procedures for a European virtual frozen tissue bank network

Cited by 82 publications

References 17 publications

Molecular determinants of outcomes: Linking tissue banks to outcomes databases

Molecular determinants of outcomes: Linking tissue banks to outcomes databases

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

Tumour Banking: The Spanish Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About