Advertisement

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Ahmed FE (2011) Biobanking perspective on challenges in sample handling, collection, processing, storage, analysis and retrieval for genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics data. Anal Methods 3:1029–1038

  2. Anderson NL, Ptolemy AS, Rifai N (2013) The riddle of protein diagnostics: future bleak or bright? Clin Chem 59:194–197

  3. Asslaber M, Zatloukal K (2007) Biobanks: transnational, European and global networks. Brief Funct Genomics 6:193–201

  4. Barnes RO, Parisien M, Murphy LC et al (2008) Influence of evolution in tumor biobanking on the interpretation of translational research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17:3344–3350

  5. Barnes JM, Nauseef JT, Henry MD (2012) Resistance to fluid shear stress is a conserved biophysical property of malignant cells. PLoS One 7:e50973

  6. Betsou F, Lehmann S, Ashton G et al (2010) Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: defining the sample PREanalytical code. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1004–1011

  7. Bledsoe MJ, Clayton EW, McGuire AL et al (2013) Return of research results from genomic biobanks: cost matters. Genet Med 15:103–105

  8. Blow N (2009) Biobanking: freezer burn. Nat Methods 6:173–178

  9. Boehm JS, Golub TR (2015) An ecosystem of cancer cell line factories to support a cancer dependency map. Nat Rev Genet 16:373–374

  10. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Clin Biochem 40:357–363

  11. Bowen A, Casadevall A (2015) Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:11335–11340

  12. Boyer GJ, Whipple W, Cadigan RJ et al (2012) Biobanks in the United States: how to identify an undefined and rapidly evolving population. Biopreserv Biobank 10:511–517

  13. Braun L, Lesperance M, Mes-Massons AM et al (2014) Individual investigator profiles of biospecimen use in cancer research. Biopreserv Biobank 12:192–198

  14. Browman GP (2012) Special series on comparative effectiveness research: challenges to real-world solutions to quality improvement in personalized medicine. J Clin Oncol 30:4188–4191

  15. Buck S (2015) Solving reproducibility. Science 348:1403

  16. Cardoso S, Valverde L, Odriozola A et al (2010) Quality standards in Biobanking: authentication by genetic profiling of blood spots from donor’s original sample. Eur J Hum Genet 18:848–851

  17. Catchpoole D, de Fazio A, Devereux L et al (2007) The importance of biorepository networks: the Australasian biospecimen network- oncology. Aust J Med Sci 28:16–20

  18. Cheah S, Dee S, Cole A et al (2012) An online tool for improving biospecimen data element reporting. Biopreserv Biobank 10:501–510

  19. Cole A, Cheah S, Dee S et al (2012) Biospecimen use correlates with emerging techniques in cancer research: impact on planning future biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 10:518–525

  20. Dong J, Malsam J, Bischof JC et al (2010) Spatial distribution of the state of water in frozen mammalian cells. Biophys J 99:2453–2459

  21. Elliott P, Peakman TC, Biobank UK (2008) The UK Biobank sample handling and storage protocol for the collection, processing and archiving of human blood and urine. Int J Epidemiol 37:234–244

  22. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13:e1002165

  23. Geraghty RJ, Capes-Davis A, Davis JM et al (2014) Guidelines for the use of cell lines in biomedical research. Br J Cancer 111:1021–1046

  24. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP et al (2013a) Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey. Genome Med 5:3

  25. Henderson GE, Edwards TP, Cadigan RJ et al (2013b) Stewardship practices of U.S. biobanks. Sci Transl Med 5:215cm7

  26. Herpel E, Röcken C, Manke H et al (2010) Quality management and accreditation of research tissue banks: experience of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg. Virchows Arch 457:741–747

  27. Hicks DG, Kushner L, McCarthy K (2011) Breast cancer predictive factor testing: the challenges and importance of standardizing tissue handling. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011:43–45

  28. Hirtzlin I, Dubreuil C, Préaubert N et al (2003) An empirical survey on biobanking of human genetic material and data in six EU countries. Eur J Hum Genet 11:475–488

  29. Hubel A, Spindler R, Skubitz AP (2014) Storage of human biospecimens: selection of the optimal storage temperature. Biopreserv Biobank 12:165–175

  30. Ioannidis JP (2014) How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 11:e1001747

  31. Kiehntopf M, Krawczak M (2011) Biobanking and international interoperability: samples. Hum Genet 130:369–376

  32. Klingström T, Soldatova L, Stevens R et al (2013) Workshop on laboratory protocol standards for the molecular methods database. Nat Biotechnol 30:109–113

  33. LaBaer J (2012) Improving international research with clinical specimens: 5 achievable objectives. J Proteome Res 11:5592–5601

  34. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P et al (2013) Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499:214–218

  35. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Mermel CH et al (2014) Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505:495–501

  36. Leek JT, Scharpf RB, Bravo HC et al (2010) Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nat Rev Genet 11:733–739

  37. Lehmann S, Guadagni F, Moore H et al (2012) Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: review and implementation of the sample PREanalytical code (SPREC). Biopreserv Biobank 10:366–374

  38. Lichter P, Allgayer H, Bartsch H et al (2010) Obligation for cell line authentication: appeal for concerted action. Int J Cancer 126:1

  39. Lim MD, Dickherber A, Compton CC (2011) Before you analyze a human specimen, think quality, variability, and bias. Anal Chem 83:8–13

  40. Massett HA, Atkinson NL, Weber D et al (2011) Assessing the need for a standardized cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB): findings from a national survey with cancer researchers. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011:8–15

  41. Matzke EM, O’Donoghue S, Barnes RO et al (2012) Certification for biobanks: the program developed by the Canadian tumour repository network (CTRNet). Biopreserv Biobank 10:426–432

  42. McShane LM, Hayes DF (2012) Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol 30:4223–4232

  43. Meir K, Cohen Y, Mee B et al (2014) Biobank networking for dissemination of data and resources: an overview. J Biorepos Sci Appl Med 2:29–42

  44. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS (2012) Evolution of translational omics: Lessons learned and the path forward. National Academies Press, Washington DC

  45. Moore H (2012) The NCI biospecimen research network. Biotech Histochem 87:18–23

  46. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD et al (2011) Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J Proteome Res 10:3429–3438. Cancer Cytopathol 119:92–101

  47. Moore HM, Kelly A, McShane LM et al (2012) Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Clin Chim Acta 413:1305

  48. Moore HM, Kelly A, McShane LM et al (2013) Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Transfusion 53:e1. doi:10.1111/trf.12281

  49. Morente MM, Mager R, Alonso S et al (2006) TuBaFrost 2: Standardising tissue collection and quality control procedures for a European virtual frozen tissue bank network. Eur J Cancer 42:2684–2691

  50. Myles R, Massett HA, Comey G et al (2011) Stakeholder research on biospecimen needs and reactions to the development of a national cancer human biobank by the National Cancer Institute. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011:16–23

  51. Norlin L, Fransson MN, Eriksson M et al (2012) A minimum data set for sharing biobank samples, information, and data: MIABIS. Biopreserv Biobank 10:343–348

  52. Olson S, Berger AC (2011) Establishing precompetitive collaborations to stimulate genomics-driven product development: workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington DC

  53. Poste G (2012) Biospecimens, biomarkers, and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol Med 18:717–722

  54. Riegman PH, de Jong B, Daidone MG et al (2015) Optimizing sharing of hospital biobank samples. Sci Transl Med 7:297fs231

  55. Rush A, Christiansen JH, Farrell JP et al (2015) Biobank classification in an Australian setting. Biopreserv Biobank 13:212–218

  56. Saletta F, Wadham C, Ziegler DS et al (2014) Molecular profiling of childhood cancer: biomarkers and novel therapies. BBA Clin 1:59–77

  57. Shabikhani M, Lucey GM, Wei B et al (2014) The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings. Clin Biochem 47:258–266

  58. Simeon-Dubach D, Moore HM (2014) BIO comes into the cold to adopt BRISQ. Biopreserv Biobank 12:223–224

  59. Simeon-Dubach D, Watson P (2014) Biobanking 3.0: evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Clin Biochem 47:300–308

  60. Simeon-Dubach D, Burt AD, Hall PA (2012) Quality really matters: the need to improve specimen quality in biomedical research. J Pathol 228:431–433. Histopathology 61:1003–1005

  61. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF (2009) Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1446–1452

  62. Vaught J, Lockhart NC (2012) The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clin Chim Acta 413:1569–1575

  63. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE et al (2013) Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339:1546–1558

  64. Watson IR, Takahashi K, Futreal PA et al (2013) Emerging patterns of somatic mutations in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 14:703–718

  65. Watson PH, Barnes RO (2011) A proposed schema for classifying human research biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 9:327–333

  66. Watson PH, Ravid R, Eng CB et al (2011) What are the main roadblocks to transnational biobank collaboration, and how can we overcome them? Biopreserv Biobank 9:213–216

  67. Watson PH, Nussbeck SY, Carter C et al (2014) A framework for biobank sustainability. Biopreserv Biobank 12:60–68

  68. Wheelock ÅM, Paulson L, Litton JE et al (2015) The EuPA Biobank Initiative: meeting the future challenges of biobanking in proteomics & systems medicine. J Proteomics. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2015.07.014

  69. Wichmann HE, Kuhn KA, Waldenberger M et al (2011) Comprehensive catalog of European biobanks. Nat Biotechnol 29:795–797

  70. Wilding JL, Bodmer WF (2014) Cancer cell lines for drug discovery and development. Cancer Res 74:2377–2384

  71. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B et al (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 14:361–384

  72. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG 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

  73. Yarden Y, Pines G (2012) The ERBB network: at last, cancer therapy meets systems biology. Nat Rev Cancer 12:553–563

  74. Yuille M, Illig T, Hveem K et al (2010) Laboratory management of samples in biobanks: European consensus expert group report. Biopreserv Biobank 8:65–69

  75. Zhang L, Wu X, Hu Y et al (2015) Establishment of a network-based intra-hospital virtual cancer biobank. Biopreserv Biobank 13:43–48

  76. Zika E, Paci D, Braun A et al (2011) A European survey on biobanks: trends and issues. Public Health Genomics 14:96–103

Download references

Acknowledgements

AR and JB gratefully acknowledge funding from the Cancer Institute NSW (14/BIO/1-05) to the Kids Cancer Alliance, which supported the preparation of this review. KS gratefully acknowledges funding support from CONCERT, a Cancer Institute NSW-funded Translational Cancer Research Centre. We are also grateful to members of the Cancer Institute NSW Biobanking Stakeholder Network and the Children’s Hospital at Westmead Tumour Bank for discussions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Byrne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rush, A., Spring, K. & Byrne, J.A. A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality. Biophys Rev 7, 369–378 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-015-0178-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biobank
  • Cancer
  • Biospecimen quality
  • Research reproducibility
  • Quality control
  • Reporting