1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology
  4. Volume 56, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology

Volume 56, 2016

Biobanking Comes of Age: The Transition to Biospecimen Science

Abstract

Biobanking involves the collection, processing, storage, and distribution of biological specimens and the policies and procedures necessary to accomplish those aims successfully. Although biobanking may also involve collections for environmental studies or museum archives, most efforts to standardize biobanking practices have been directed toward human biomedical research. Initially focused primarily on collecting samples for diagnostic purposes in pathology settings, biobanks have evolved into complex organizations engaged in advancing personalized (or precision) medicine and translational research. This evolution has involved the development of biobanking best practices and the transformation of a field driven by empirical approaches into the emerging area of biospecimen science. It has become increasingly important to develop evidence-based practices for collecting biospecimens and data that can be shared with confidence with international collaborators. Aside from these technical approaches, other factors play crucial roles, such as ethical and regulatory issues, business planning and sustainability, and approaches to data collection and sharing.

Keyword(s): best practices, biorepository, biospecimen, biospecimen science, evidence-based practices, personalized medicine
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246
2016-01-06
2025-02-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pharmtox/56/1/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Eiseman E, Haga SB. 1.  1999. Handbook of Human Tissue Sources: A National Resource of Human Tissue Samples Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. US Natl. Libr. Med 2014. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Bethesda, MD: US Natl. Libr. Med http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/medtour/afip.html [Google Scholar]
  3. Poste G. 3.  2012. Biospecimens, biomarkers, and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol. Med. 18:717–22 [Google Scholar]
  4. Collins FS, Varmus H. 4.  2015. A new initiative on precision medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:793–95 [Google Scholar]
  5. Moore HM, Compton CC, Alper J, Vaught JB. 5.  2011. International approaches to advancing biospecimen science. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 20:729–32 [Google Scholar]
  6. Vaught JB. 6.  2006. Biorepository and biospecimen science: a new focus for CEBP. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 15:1572–73 [Google Scholar]
  7. Vaught JB, Henderson MK, Compton CC. 7.  2012. Biospecimens and biorepositories: from afterthought to science. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 21:253–55 [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. BBRB (Biorepositories Biospecimen Res. Branch) 2011. NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/2011-NCIBestPractices.pdf [Google Scholar]
  9. Hewitt R, Watson P. 9.  2013. Defining biobank. Biopreservation Biobanking 11:309–15 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker M. 10.  2012. Biorepositories: building better biobanks. Nature 486:141–46 [Google Scholar]
  11. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, Conlon I, Nelson AG. 11.  et al. 2013. Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey. Genome Med. 5:3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hallmans G, Vaught JB. 12.  2011. Best practices for establishing a biobank. Methods Mol. Biol. 675:241–60 [Google Scholar]
  13. Vaught J, Lockhart NC. 13.  2012. The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clin. Chim. Acta 413:1569–75 [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. Int. Soc. Biol. Environ. Repos 2012. 2012 best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval, and distribution of biological materials for research. Biopreservation Biobanking 10:79–161 [Google Scholar]
  15. Vaught J, Kelly A, Hewitt R. 15.  2009. A review of international biobanks and networks: success factors and key benchmarks. Biopreservation Biobanking 7:143–50 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engel KB, Vaught J, Moore HM. 16.  2014. National Cancer Institute Biospecimen Evidence-Based Practices: a novel approach to pre-analytical standardization. Biopreservation Biobanking 12:148–50 [Google Scholar]
  17. García-Closas M, Moore LE, Rabkin CS, Franklin T, Struewing J. 17.  et al. 2006. Quantitation of DNA in buccal cell samples collected in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers 11:472–79 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jewell SD, Srinivasan M, McCart LM, Williams N, Grizzle WH. 18.  et al. 2002. Analysis of the molecular quality of human tissues: an experience from the Cooperative Human Tissue Network. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 118:733–41 [Google Scholar]
  19. Vaught JB. 19.  2006. Blood collection, shipment, processing, and storage. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 15:1582–84 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cortés B, Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Jiménez S. 20.  et al. 2010. Establishment and operation of a biorepository for molecular epidemiologic studies in Costa Rica. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 19:916–22 [Google Scholar]
  21. Vaught J, Bledsoe M, Watson P. 21.  2014. Biobanking on multiple continents: Will international coordination follow?. Biopreservation Biobanking 12:1–2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Vaught JB, Caboux E, Hainaut P. 22.  2010. International efforts to develop biospecimen best practices. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 19:912–15 [Google Scholar]
  23. van Ommen GJB, Törnwall O, Bréchot C, Dagher G, Galli J. 23.  et al. 2014. BBMRI-ERIC as a resource for pharmaceutical and life science industries: the development of biobank-based Expert Centres. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23:893–900 [Google Scholar]
  24. Viertler C, Zatloukal K. 24.  2008. Biobanken und Biomolekulare Ressourcen Forschungsinfrastruktur (BBMRI) [Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI): implications for pathology]. Der Pathol. 29:Suppl. 2210–13 [Google Scholar]
  25. Spruessel A, Steimann G, Jung M, Lee SA, Carr T. 25.  et al. 2004. Tissue ischemia time affects gene and protein expression patterns within minutes following surgical tumor excision. Biotechniques 36:1030–37 [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. Natl. Cancer Inst 2015. The Cancer Genome Atlas. Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://cancergenome.nih.gov/ [Google Scholar]
  27. Compton C. 27.  2007. Getting to personalized cancer medicine: taking out the garbage. Cancer 110:1641–43 [Google Scholar]
  28. Perez EA, Press MF, Dueck AC, Jenkins RB, Kim C. 28.  et al. 2013. Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of HER2 in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (NCCTG N9831, BCIRG 006, and BCIRG 005). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 138:99–108 [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. Coll. Am. Pathol 2015. College of American Pathologists. Northfield, IL: Coll. Am. Pathol http://www.cap.org/ [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol 2015. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Alexandria, VA: ASCO http://www.asco.org/ [Google Scholar]
  31. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC. 31.  et al. 2007. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 131:18–43 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM. 32.  et al. 2013. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 31:3997–4013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Khoury T, Sait S, Hwang H, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding G. 33.  et al. 2009. Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers. Mod. Pathol. 22:1457–67 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hewitt SM, Badve SS, True LD. 34.  2012. Impact of preanalytic factors on the design and application of integral biomarkers for directing patient therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 18:1524–30 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ransohoff DF, Gourlay ML. 35.  2010. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28:698–704 [Google Scholar]
  36. Betsou F, Barnes R, Burke T, Coppola D, DeSouza Y. 36.  et al. 2009. Human biospecimen research: experimental protocol and quality control tools. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 18:1017–25 [Google Scholar]
  37. Betsou F, Gunter E, Clements J, DeSouza Y, Goddard KAB. 37.  et al. 2013. Identification of evidence-based biospecimen quality-control tools: a report of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) Biospecimen Science Working Group. J. Mol. Diagn. 15:3–16 [Google Scholar]
  38. Carter A, Betsou F. 38.  2011. Quality assurance in cancer biobanking. Biopreservation Biobanking 9:157–63 [Google Scholar]
  39. Carter A, Betsou F, Clark BJ. 39.  2011. Quality management and accreditation of research tissue banks. Virchows Arch. 458:247–48 [Google Scholar]
  40. Chaigneau C, Cabioch T, Beaumont K, Betsou F. 40.  2007. Serum biobank certification and the establishment of quality controls for biological fluids: examples of serum biomarker stability after temperature variation. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 45:1390–95 [Google Scholar]
  41. Vaught JB, Abayomi A, Peakman T, Watson P, Matzke L, Moore H. 41.  2014. Critical issues in international biobanking. Clin. Chem. 60:1368–74 [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. FDA (US Food Drug Admin.) 2015. Facts About the Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) Silver Spring, MD: FDA http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/ucm169105.htm [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.) 2015. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Geneva: ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.) 2015. ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems: Revision Geneva: ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000/iso9001_revision.htm [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.) 2015. ISO/TC 276 Biotechnology Geneva: ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=4514241 [Google Scholar]
  46. Vaught JB, Hsing AW. 46.  2010. Methodologic data: important foundation for molecular and biomarker studies. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 19:901–2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Peakman TC, Elliott P. 47.  2008. The UK Biobank sample handling and storage validation studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 37:Suppl. 1i2–6 [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. Biobank 2015. UK Biobank Stockport, UK: Biobank http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ [Google Scholar]
  49. Elliott P, Peakman TC. 49.  2008. The UK Biobank sample handling and storage validation studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 37:Suppl. 1 http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/suppl_1.toc [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. BBRB (Biorepositories Biospecimen Res. Branch) 2015. Biospecimen Research Network Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/researchnetwork/ [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. SPIDIA 2015. Standardisation and Improvement of Generic Pre-Analytical Tools and Procedures for In-Vitro Diagnostics (SPIDIA) Hilden, Ger: SPIDIA http://www.spidia.eu/ [Google Scholar]
  52. Moore HM, Compton CC, Lim MD, Vaught J, Christiansen KN, Alper J. 52.  2009. Biospecimen Research Network Symposium: advancing cancer research through biospecimen science. Cancer Res. 69:6770–72 [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. SPIDIA 2015. SPIDIA Scientific Articles Hilden, Ger: SPIDIA http://www.spidia.eu/publications/articles/ [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. BBRB (Biorepositories Biospecimen Res. Branch) 2015. Scientific Publications Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/resources/sp.asp [Google Scholar]
  55. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. 55.  2012. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 9:e1001216 [Google Scholar]
  56. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 56.  et al. 2005. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Eur. J. Cancer 41:1690–96 [Google Scholar]
  57. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP. 57.  et al. 2011. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol. 119:92–101 [Google Scholar]
  58. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 58.  et al. 2005. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2:416–22 [Google Scholar]
  59. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 59.  et al. 2005. REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br. J. Cancer 93:387–91 [Google Scholar]
  60. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 60.  et al. 2005. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 97:1180–84 [Google Scholar]
  61. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 61.  et al. 2006. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Exp. Oncol. 28:99–105 [Google Scholar]
  62. Moore HM, Kelly A, McShane LM, Vaught J. 62.  2012. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Clin. Chim. Acta 413:1305 [Google Scholar]
  63. Moore HM, Kelly A, McShane LM, Vaught J. 63.  2013. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Transfusion 53:e1 [Google Scholar]
  64. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP. 64.  et al. 2011. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J. Proteome Res. 10:3429–38 [Google Scholar]
  65. Nanni U, Betsou F, Riondino S, Rossetti L, Spila A. 65.  et al. 2012. SPRECware: software tools for Standard PREanalytical Code (SPREC) labeling—effective exchange and search of stored biospecimens. Int. J. Biol. Mark. 27:e272–79 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nussbeck SY, Benson EE, Betsou F, Guadagni F, Lehmann S, Umbach N. 66.  2013. Is there a protocol for using the SPREC?. Biopreservation Biobanking 11:260–66 [Google Scholar]
  67. Betsou F, Lehmann S, Ashton G, Barnes M, Benson EE. 67.  et al. 2010. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: defining the sample PREanalytical code. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 19:1004–11 [Google Scholar]
  68. Grizzle WE, Fredenburgh J. 68.  2001. Avoiding biohazards in medical, veterinary and research laboratories. Biotech. Histochem. 76:183–206 [Google Scholar]
  69. Vaught JB, Lockhart N, Thiel KS, Schneider JA. 69.  2007. Ethical, legal, and policy issues: dominating the biospecimen discussion. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 16:2521–23 [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. HHS (US Dep. Health Hum. Serv.) 2015. Biological Materials & Data Washington, DC: HHS http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/biodata/ [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. HHS (US Dep. Health Hum. Serv.) 2015. Informed Consent FAQs Washington, DC: HHS http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/informed-consent/basic-elements-of-informed-consent.html [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. BBRB (Biorepositories Biospecimen Res. Branch) 2015. Informed Consent Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/elp/ic.asp [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. HHS (US Dep. Health Hum. Serv.) 2015. Health Information Privacy Washington, DC: HHS http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ [Google Scholar]
  74. Lemrow SM, Colditz GA, Vaught JB, Hartge P. 74.  2007. Key elements of access policies for biorepositories associated with population science research. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 16:1533–35 [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. Natl. Cancer Inst 2012. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst https://www.plcostars.com/Default.aspx?projectid=2c74312f-2a93-4d34-ba81-55604d8ebe50 [Google Scholar]
  76. Forsberg JS, Hansson MG, Eriksson S. 76.  2009. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 17:1544–49 [Google Scholar]
  77. Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SJ, Bovenberg JA, Smets EM. 77.  2012. Researchers' opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 20:258–62 [Google Scholar]
  78. Bemmels HR, Wolf SM, Van Ness B. 78.  2012. Mapping the inputs, analyses, and outputs of biobank research systems to identify sources of incidental findings and individual research results for potential return to participants. Genet. Med. 14:385–92 [Google Scholar]
  79. Black L, Avard D, Zawati MH, Knoppers BM, Hebert J. 79.  et al. 2013. Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research. Clin. Genet. 84:397–406 [Google Scholar]
  80. Vaught J. 80.  2013. Economics: the neglected “omics” of biobanking. Biopreservation Biobanking 11:259 [Google Scholar]
  81. Albert M, Bartlett J, Johnston RN, Schacter B, Watson P. 81.  2014. Biobank bootstrapping: Is biobank sustainability possible through cost recovery?. Biopreservation Biobanking 12:374–80 [Google Scholar]
  82. Vaught J, Rogers J, Carolin T, Compton C. 82.  2011. Biobankonomics: developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2011:24–31 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rogers J, Carolin T, Vaught J, Compton C. 83.  2011. Biobankonomics: a taxonomy for evaluating the economic benefits of standardized centralized human biobanking for translational research. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2011:32–38 [Google Scholar]
  84. Simeon-Dubach D, Henderson MK. 84.  2014. Sustainability in biobanking. Biopreservation Biobanking 12:287–91 [Google Scholar]
  85. Matharoo-Ball B, Thomson BJ. 85.  2014. Nottingham Health Science Biobank: a sustainable bioresource. Biopreservation Biobanking 12:312–16 [Google Scholar]
  86. Betsou F, Beaudeux JL, Berthelaix A, Borg J, Dupuy A. 86.  et al. 2009. “Standard” protocol for evaluating the impact of preanalytical variables on peptidic and proteic analytes and standard coding of preanalytical procedures. Ann. Biol. Clin. 67:641–49 [Google Scholar]
  87. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M. 87.  et al. 2006. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 100:229–35 [Google Scholar]
  88. Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, Kinde I, Wang Y. 88.  et al. 2014. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Sci. Transl. Med. 6:224ra24 [Google Scholar]
  89. Basik M, Aguilar-Mahecha A, Rousseau C, Diaz Z, Tejpar S. 89.  et al. 2013. Biopsies: next-generation biospecimens for tailoring therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10:437–50 [Google Scholar]
  90. El Messaoudi S, Rolet F, Mouliere F, Thierry AR. 90.  2013. Circulating cell free DNA: preanalytical considerations. Clin. Chim. Acta 424:222–30 [Google Scholar]
  91. Clement O, Whitney S, Muller-Cohn J, Muller R. 91.  2012. Following nature's lead: generating compounds for stabilizing biomolecules. Biopreservation Biobanking 10:395–402 [Google Scholar]
  92. Crowe JH. 92.  2012. Introduction: stabilization of dry biological materials. Biopreservation Biobanking 10:375 [Google Scholar]
  93. Geisberg JV, Basque T. 93.  2011. Carryover test in frozen serum cored by an automated frozen sample aliquotter. Biopreservation Biobanking 9:373–77 [Google Scholar]
  94. Mathay C, Ammerlaan W, Betsou F. 94.  2012. Automatic buffy coat extraction: methodology, feasibility, optimization and validation study. Biopreservation Biobanking 10:543–47 [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. Université Catholique de Lyon 2015. Ecole Supérieure de Biologie-Biochimie-Biotechnologies Lyon, Fr: Université Catholique de Lyon http://www.estbb.fr/ [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. Coll. Am. Pathol 2014. Biorepository Accreditation Program Checklist. Northfield, IL: Coll. Am. Pathol http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/laboratory_accreditation/lap_info/biorepository_accreditation_program_checklist_sample.pdf [Google Scholar]
  97. Vaught JB, Henderson MK. 97.  2011. Biological sample collection, processing, storage and information management. IARC Sci. Publ. 2011:23–42 [Google Scholar]
  98. Benner J. 98.  2009. Establish a transparent chain-of-custody to mitigate risk and ensure quality of specialized samples. Biopreservation Biobanking 7:151–53 [Google Scholar]
  99. Mills FJ, Brooks A. 99.  2010. Information systems for biobanks/biorepositories: handling information associated with compliant sample management. Biopreservation Biobanking 8:163–65 [Google Scholar]
  100. Norlin L, Fransson MN, Eriksson M, Merino-Martinez R, Anderberg M. 100.  et al. 2012. A minimum data set for sharing biobank samples, information, and data: MIABIS. Biopreservation Biobanking 10:343–48 [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. BBRB (Biorepositories Biospecimen Res. Branch) 2015. Lifecycle of Biospecimens Bethesda, MD: Natl. Cancer Inst http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/researchnetwork/lifecycle.asp [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246
Loading
Biobanking Comes of Age: The Transition to Biospecimen Science
Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 56, 211 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103246
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error