Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural requirements of research tissue banks derived from standardized project surveillance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tissue banks constitute decisive and rate-limiting resource and technology platforms for basic and translational biomedical research, notably in the area of cancer. Thus, it is essential to plan and structure tissue banking and allocate resources according to research needs, but essential requirements are still incompletely defined. The tissue bank of the National Center of Tumor Diseases Heidelberg (NCT) was founded with the intention to provide tissues of optimal quality and to prioritize the realization of research projects. We analysed its structure and prospective project management registration as well as tracking records for all projects of the NCT tissue bank as of its start in 2005 in order to obtain information that may be relevant for tissue bank planning. All project proposals submitted to the NCT tissue bank (n = 681) were included in the study. For a detailed evaluation of provided services, only projects that were completed until July 2011 (n = 605) were analysed. For these 605 projects, NCT tissue bank provided 769 specific services. In all projects/services, we recorded project leader, type and amount of material provided, type of research (basic/translational), work load of project and project completion. Furthermore, all completed projects were tracked after 90 days according to a standard protocol to determine principal investigators’ (PI) satisfaction and quality of the provided material. Until July 2011, 605 projects had been successfully completed as documented by material transfer agreement. Of the projects, 72.7 % addressed basic research, 22.3 % were translational research projects and 3 % concerned epidemiological research; 91 % (n = 546) concerned a single PI and the NTC tissue bank. For these projects, 769 specific services were provided. Of these services, 288 concerned providing formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue (extracts, full size sections), 126 providing fresh frozen materials (including fresh frozen sections), 137 providing tissue micro-array (TMA)-based sections and 199 providing immunohistochemical services. Project tracking demonstrated that all projects had started within 90 days after reception of the material by the PIs, and PI satisfaction with provided material exceeded 97 %. Standardized registration and tracking provides valuable structural information for planning and financing of tissue banks and allocation of resources. The high number of completed projects as well as high user satisfaction demonstrates that structuring of tissue banks should be preferably research-oriented and highly efficient. The comparable number of requests for FFPE and fresh frozen tissue as well as TMA-based services underpins the need for a broad approach in terms of methods and material types in order to fulfil research needs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Riegman PH, Morente MM, Betsou F, de Blasio P, Geary P (2008) Biobanking for better healthcare. Mol Oncol 2(3):213–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Herpel E, Koleganova N, Schirmacher P (2008) Tissue bank of the National Centre for Tumour Disease. An innovative platform for translational tumour. Pathologe 29(Suppl 2):204–209. doi:10.1007/s00292-008-1067-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Riegman PH, Dinjens WN, Oosterhuis JW (2007) Biobanking for interdisciplinary clinical research. Pathobiology 74(4):239–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bates S (2010) Progress towards personalized medicine. Drug Discov Today 15(3–4):115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zika E, Paci D, Braun A, Rijkers-Defrasne S, Deschenes M, Fortier I, Laage-Hellman J, Scerri CA, Ibarreta D (2011) A European survey on biobanks: trends and issues. Public Health Genomics 14(2):96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM (2007) Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J 30(2):373–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 7(3):266–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stege A, Hummel M (2008) Experience with establishment and operation of a biobank. Pathologe 29(Suppl 2):214–217. doi:10.1007/s00292-008-1043-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Giannini C, Oelkers MM, Edwards WD, Aubry MC, Muncil MM, Mohamud KH, Sandleback SG, Nowak JM, Bridgeman A, Brown ME, Cheville JC (2011) Maintaining clinical tissue archives and supporting human research: challenges and solutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135(3):347–353. doi:10.1043/2010-0044-SA.1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shickle D, Griffin M, El-Arifi K (2010) Inter- and intra-biobank networks: classification of biobanks. Pathobiology 77(4):181–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Herpel E, Rocken C, Manke H, Schirmacher P, Flechtenmacher C (2010) Quality management and accreditation of research tissue banks: experience of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg. Virchows Arch 457(6):741–747. doi:10.1007/s00428-010-0998-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Villena C, Pozo F, Barbera JA, Vaquer P, Agusti A (2011) The CIBERES Pulmonary Biobank Consortium: an opportunity for cooperative international respiratory research. Eur Respir J 37(1):204–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Diamandis M, White NM, Yousef GM (2010) Personalized medicine: marking a new epoch in cancer patient management. Mol Cancer Res 8(9):1175–1187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Qualman SJ, France M, Grizzle WE, LiVolsi VA, Moskaluk CA, Ramirez NC, Washington MK (2004) Establishing a tumour bank: banking, informatics and ethics. Br J Cancer 90(6):1115–1119. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.66016786601678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruiz-Godoy L, Meneses-Garcia A, Suarez-Roa L, Enriquez V, Lechuga-Rojas R, Reyes-Lira E (2010) Organization of a tumor bank: the experience of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. Pathobiology 77(3):147–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hallmans G, Vaught JB (2011) Best practices for establishing a biobank. Methods Mol Biol 675:241–260. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-423-0_13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ennis DP, Pidgeon GP, Millar N, Ravi N, Reynolds JV (2010) Building a bioresource for esophageal research: lessons from the early experience of an academic medical center. Dis Esophagus 23(1):1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Riegman PH, van Veen EB (2011) Biobanking residual tissues. Hum Genet 130(3):357–368. doi:10.1007/s00439-011-1074-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bevilacqua G, Bosman F, Dassesse T, Hofler H, Janin A, Langer R, Larsimont D, Morente MM, Riegman P, Schirmacher P, Stanta G, Zatloukal K, Caboux E, Hainaut P (2010) The role of the pathologist in tissue banking: European Consensus Expert Group Report. Virchows Arch 456(4):449–454. doi:10.1007/s00428-010-0887-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Riegman PH, Bosch AL (2008) OECI TuBaFrost tumor biobanking. Tumori 94(2):160–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg Medical School, Heidelberg, Germany

    E. Herpel, N. Koleganova & P. Schirmacher

  2. Tissue Bank of the National Center for Tumor Disease, University of Heidelberg Medical School, Heidelberg, Germany

    E. Herpel, N. Koleganova, B. Schreiber & B. Walter

  3. National Center of Tumor Diseases (NCT), University of Heidelberg Medical School, Heidelberg, Germany

    C. v. Kalle

  4. Im Neuenheimer Feld 220, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    E. Herpel

Authors
  1. E. Herpel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Koleganova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Schreiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. v. Kalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Schirmacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Herpel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herpel, E., Koleganova, N., Schreiber, B. et al. Structural requirements of research tissue banks derived from standardized project surveillance. Virchows Arch 461, 79–86 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1258-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1258-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation