How clinical biobanks can support precision medicine: from standardized preprocessing to treatment guidance

References

• National Research Council (US) Committee on A Framework for Developing a New Taxonomy of Disease. Toward precision medicine, building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease [Internet]. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91503/
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg GS, Phillips KA. Precision medicine: from science to value. Health Aff. 2018;37(5):694–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronson SJ, Rehm HL. Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine. Nature. 2015;526(7573):336–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan Q. Toward the integration of personalized and systems medicine: challenges, opportunities and approaches. Per Med. 2011;8(1):1–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leichsenring J, Horak P, Kreutzfeldt S, et al. Variant classification in precision oncology. Int J Cancer. 2019;145(11):2996–3010..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horak P, Klink B, Heining C, et al. Precision oncology based on omics data: the NCT Heidelberg experience. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(5):877–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volckmar AL, Leichsenring J, Kirchner M, et al. Combined targeted DNA and RNA sequencing of advanced NSCLC in routine molecular diagnostics: analysis of the first 3,000 Heidelberg cases. Int J Cancer. 2019;145(3):649–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gülbakan B, Özgül RK, Yüzbaşioglu A, et al. Discovery of biomarkers in rare diseases: innovative approaches by predictive and personalized medicine. EPMA J. 2016;7(1):24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borrebaeck CAK. Precision diagnostics: moving towards protein biomarker signatures of clinical utility in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(3):199–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doll S, Gnad F, Mann M. The case for proteomics and phospho-proteomics in personalized cancer medicine. Proteomics - Clin Appl. 2019;13(2):e1800113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemoll T, Meyer R, Habermann JK. Applying genomics and proteomics in translational surgical oncology research. Eur Surg Res. 2015;55(3):184–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirwan JA, Kaddurah-Daouk R, Mitchell T, et al. Biobanking for metabolomics and lipidomics in precision medicine. Clin Chem. 2019;65(7):827–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caixeiro NJ, Lai K, Lee CS. Quality assessment and preservation of RNA from biobank tissue specimens: a systematic review. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69(3):260–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghini V, Quaglio D, Luchinat C, et al. NMR for sample quality assessment in metabolomics. N Biotechnol. 2019;52:25–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shabihkhani M, Lucey GM, Wei B, et al. The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(4–5):258–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diogo D, Tian C, Franklin CS, et al. Phenome-wide association studies across large population cohorts support drug target validation. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier RM, Zhu Z, Lee SH, et al. Improving genetic prediction by leveraging genetic correlations among human diseases and traits. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):989.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dugger SA, Platt A, Goldstein DB. Drug development in the era of precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(3):183–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwaederle M, Parker BA, Schwab RB, et al. Molecular tumor board: the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center experience. Oncologist. 2014;19(6):631–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoeklé HC, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Frouart CH, et al. Molecular tumor boards: ethical issues in the new era of data medicine. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24:307–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransson MN, Rial-Sebbag E, Brochhausen M, et al. Toward a common language for biobanking. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(1):22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Creation and governance of human genetic research databases. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Kinkorová J. Biobanks in the era of personalized medicine: objectives, challenges, and innovation. EPMA J. 2016;7: 4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011;23(1):112–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams K, Martin S. Ethical tissue: a not-for-profit model for human tissue supply. Cell Tissue Bank. 2011;12(1):9–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppola L, Cianflone A, Grimaldi AM, et al. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paskal W, Paskal AM, Dębski T, et al. Aspects of modern biobank activity – comprehensive review. Pathol Oncol Res. 2018;24:771–785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl E. Biobanking and the further development of precision medicine. Pathologe. 2018;39(4):308–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Diffalha S, Sexton KC, Watson PH, et al. The importance of human tissue bioresources in advancing biomedical research. Biopreserv Biobank. 2019;17(3):209–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu YC, Chang JTC, Huang YC, et al. Combined determination of circulating miR-196a and miR-196b levels produces high sensitivity and specificity for early detection of oral cancer. Clin Biochem. 2015;48(3):115–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letellier E, Schmitz M, Baig K, et al. Identification of SOCS2 and SOCS6 as biomarkers in human colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(4):726–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bielinski SJ, Olson JE, Pathak J, et al. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right timed using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allegra M, Giacchero D, Segalen C, et al. A new KIT mutation (N505I) in acral melanoma confers constitutive signaling, favors tumorigenic properties, and is sensitive to imatinib. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(5):1473–1476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, et al. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104(1):21–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunkle BW, Grenier-Boley B, Sims R, et al. Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing. Nat Genet. 2019;51:414–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ElSharawy A, Röder C, Becker T, et al. Concentration of circulating miRNA-containing particles in serum enhances miRNA detection and reflects CRC tissue-related deregulations. Oncotarget. 2016;7(46):75353–75365.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoellen F, Waldmann A, Banz-Jansen C, et al. Claudin-1 expression in cervical cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;7(5):880–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan HHN, Siu HC, Law S, et al. A comprehensive human gastric cancer organoid biobank captures tumor subtype heterogeneity and enables therapeutic screening. Cell Stem Cell. 2018;23(6):882–897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter G, Krawczak M, Lieb W, et al. Broad consent for health care-embedded biobanking: understanding and reasons to donate in a large patient sample. Genet Med. 2018;20(1):76–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrini C. Ethical and legal considerations regarding the ownership and commercial use of human biological materials and their derivatives. J Blood Med. 2012;3:87–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steinsbekk KS, Kare Myskja B, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(9):897–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caulfield T, Murdoch B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7):e2002654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. the economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullard A. Reliability of “new drug target” claims called into question. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):643–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(6):750–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betsou F, Bulla A, Cho SY, et al. Assays for qualification and quality stratification of clinical biospecimens used in research: a technical report from the ISBER Biospecimen Science Working Group. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14(5):398–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollison BM, Thai E, Mckinney A, et al. Blood collection in cell-stabilizing tubes does not impact germline DNA quality for pediatric patients. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0188835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong SH, Baek HA, Jang KY, et al. Effects of delay in the snap freezing of colorectal cancer tissues on the quality of DNA and RNA. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26(5):316–323.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gemoll T, Löwe O, Borén M, et al. The impact of pre-analytical conditions on the serum proteome: heat-stabilization versus nitrogen storage. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2013;119:100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bünger S, Klempt-Giessing K, Toner V, et al. A novel multiplex–protein array for serum diagnostics of colorectal cancer: impact of pre-analytical storage conditions. Biopreserv Biobank. 2013;11(6):379–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton C. Getting to personalized cancer medicine: taking out the garbage. Cancer. 2007;110(8):1641–1643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betsou F, Lehmann S, Ashton G, et al. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens; defining the sample PREanalytical code. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(4):1004–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann S, Guadagni F, Moore H, et al. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: review and implementation of the Sample PREanalytical Code (SPREC). Biopreserv Biobank. 2012;10:366–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, et al. Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;53:e1.
   Google Scholar
• Lim MS, Beyer T, Babayan A, et al. Advancing biomarker development through convergent engagement: summary report of the 2nd International danube symposium on biomarker development, molecular imaging and applied diagnostics; March 14–16, 2018; Vienna, Austria. Mol Imaging Biol. 2019. [Internet]. DOI:10.1007/s11307-019-01361-2
   Google Scholar
• Grölz D, Hauch S, Guenther K, et al. Liquid biopsy preservation solutions for standardized pre-analytical workflows—venous whole blood and plasma. Curr Pathobiol Rep. 2018;6:275–286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dagher G, Becker K-F, Bonin S, et al. Pre-analytical processes in medical diagnostics: new regulatory requirements and standards. N Biotechnol. 2019;52:121–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Study. Overview of the national laws on electronic health records in the EU member states and their interaction with the provision of cross-border eHealth services. Final report and recommendations [Internet]. Brussels: Milieu Ltd - time.lex; 2014. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/projects/nationallaws_electronichealthrecords_en
   Google Scholar
• Yang UC, Hsiao TH, Lin CH, et al. Integrative LHS for precision medicine research: a shared NIH and Taiwan CIMS experience. Learn Heal Syst. 2019;3(1):e10071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollen S, Page A, Wilson J. From the data on many, precision medicine for “one”: the case for widespread genomic data sharing. Biomed Hub. 2017;2(Suppl. 1):21.
   Google Scholar
• Brownstein CA, Holm IA, Ramoni R, et al. Data sharing in the undiagnosed diseases network. Hum Mutat. 2015;36(10):985–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia M, Downs J, Russell A, et al. Impact of biobanks on research outcomes in rare diseases: a systematic review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):202.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Litton J-E. Launch of an infrastructure for health research: BBMRI-ERIC. Biopreserv Biobank. 2018;16(3):233–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbeck SY, Rabone M, Benson EE, et al. “Life in data” —outcome of a multi-disciplinary, interactive biobanking conference session on sample data. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14(1):56–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell LD, Astrin JJ, DeSouza Y, et al. The 2018 revision of the ISBER best practices : summary of changes and the editorial team’s development process. Biopreserv Biobank. 2018;16(1):3–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norlin L, Fransson MN, Eriksson M, et al. A minimum data set for sharing biobank samples, information, and data: MIABIS. Biopreserv Biobank. 2012;10(4):343–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merino-Martinez R, Norlin L, van Enckevort D, et al. Toward global biobank integration by implementation of the Minimum Information About BIobank Data Sharing (MIABIS 2.0 Core). Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14(4):298–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitz J, Schwab J, Schwenck J, et al. Decoding intratumoral heterogeneity of breast cancer by multiparametric in vivo imaging: a translational study. Cancer Res. 2016;76(18):5512–5522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katiyar P, Divine MR, Kohlhofer U, et al. Spectral clustering predicts tumor tissue heterogeneity using dynamic 18 F-FDG PET: a complement to the standard compartmental modeling approach. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:651–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denny JC, Van Driest SL, Wei WQ, et al. The influence of big (clinical) data and genomics on precision medicine and drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(3):409–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlenko A, Moore JH, Orzechowski P, et al. Considerations for automated machine learning in clinical metabolic profiling: altered homocysteine plasma concentration associated with metformin exposure. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2018;23:460–471.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar