Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources European Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-ERIC) established a CRC-Cohort with European coverage contributed by 26 biobanks from 12 countries. This retrospective, multi-center study contains structured and curated clinical data, supporting research on biomarkers for early detection, prognosis, and treatment. A phenotypical/clinical data model has been defined and individual-level data from 10,780 CRC patients have been collected at BBMRI-ERIC in the central data deposition service hosted as part of its services. The participating biobanks host additional data, which can be accessed on request and used to derive additional data. This mechanism has been used to extend the collected data with scans of histopathological slides to support research in artificial intelligence in digital pathology and with whole genome sequencing data to pilot a use case of the upcoming European Health Data Space (EHDS). Here we present the methodology, the quality assurance mechanisms, and the implementation of FAIR and FAIR-Health principles applied to build the CRC-Cohort.

The term “biobanking” is often misapplied to any collection of human biological materials (biospecimens) regardless of requirements related to ethical and legal issues or the standardization of different processes involved in tissue collection. A proper definition of biobanks is large collections of biospecimens linked to relevant personal and health information (health records, family history, lifestyle, genetic information) that are held predominantly for use in health and medical research. In addition, the International Organization for Standardization, in illustrating the requirements for biobanking (ISO 20387:2018), stresses the concept of biobanks being legal entities driving the process of acquisition and storage together with some or all of the activities related to collection, preparation, preservation, testing, analysing and distributing defined biological material as well as related information and data. In this review article, we aim to discuss the basic principles of biobanking, spanning from definitions to classification systems, standardization processes and documents, sustainability and ethical and legal requirements. We also deal with emerging specimens that are currently being generated and shaping the so-called next-generation biobanking, and we provide pragmatic examples of cancer-associated biobanking by discussing the process behind the construction of a biobank and the infrastructures supporting the implementation of biobanking in scientific research.

Colorectal and glioblastoma cancer stem-like cells (CSCs) are essential for translational research. Cell line authentication by short tandem repeat (STR) profiling ensures reproducibility of results in oncology research. This technique enables to identify mislabeling or cross-contamination of cell lines. In our study, we provide a reference dataset for a panel of colorectal and glioblastoma CSCs that allows authentication. Each cell line was entered into the cell Line Integrated Molecular Authentication database 2.1 to be compared to the STR profiles of 4485 tumor cell lines. This article also provides clinical data of patients from whom CSCs arose and data on the parent tumor stage and mutations. STR profiles and information of our CSCs are also available in the Cellosaurus database (ExPASy) as identified by unique research resource identifier codes.

Introduction: The Minimum Information About BIobank data Sharing (MIABIS) was initiated in 2012. MIABIS aims to create a common biobank terminology to facilitate data sharing in biobanks and sample collections. The MIABIS Core terminology consists of three components describing biobanks, sample collections, and studies, in which information on samples and sample donors is provided at aggregated form. However, there is also a need to describe samples and sample donors at an individual level to allow more elaborate queries on available biobank samples and data. Therefore the MIABIS terminology has now been extended with components describing samples and sample donors at an individual level. Materials and Methods: The components were defined according to specific scope and use cases by a large group of experts, and through several cycles of reviews, according to the new MIABIS governance model of BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium). The guiding principles applied in developing these components included the following terms: model should consider only samples of human origin, model should be applicable to all types of samples and all sample donors, and model should describe the current status of samples stored in a given biobank. Results: A minimal set of standard attributes for defining samples and sample donors is presented here. We added an "event" component to describe attributes that are not directly describing samples or sample donors but are tightly related to them. To better utilize the generic data model, we suggest a procedure by which interoperability can be promoted, using specific MIABIS profiles. Discussion: The MIABIS sample and donor component extensions and the new generic data model complement the existing MIABIS Core 2.0 components, and substantially increase the potential usability of this terminology for better describing biobank samples and sample donors. They also support the use of individual level data about samples and sample donors to obtain accurate and detailed biobank availability queries.

Research in toxicology relies on in vitro models such as cell lines. These living models are prone to change and may be described in publications with insufficient information or quality control testing. This article sets out recommendations to improve the reliability of cell-based research.

The BRIF is an ongoing initiative that encompasses reflections and actions from various stakeholders (researchers, funders, industrials, editors) towards i/ standardised identification schemes and reporting for better visibility and tracing of bioresources on the web; ii/incentive policies from hosting institutions; iii/creation of tools allowing follow up of their use. Tracing the use of bioresource is the first step in this process and for this purpose we have published the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, launched the Open Journal of Bioresources and started developing new metrics. The CoBRA guideline aims to standardise the citation of bioresources in scientific articles in order to trace their use on the web. The Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB) was created in close collaboration with the open access publisher Ubiquity Press allowing both the resources and the OJB papers to be cited, and also providing authors with tools to get metrics on reuse and impact. New better adapted metrics are being worked out in a dedicated BRIF working subgroup. A first list of relevant parameters to take into account in the impact measure of bioresources has been provided. The tools proposed here foster easier access to samples and associated data as well as their optimised use, sharing and recognition for data producers. Input from the scientific editorial community would be highly appreciated at this stage.

Data sharing institutional incentives exist but no practical tools to implement such policy are in place.The BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) initiative was conceived as a possible way to fill this gap.It is an ongoing initiative that encompasses considerations and actions from various stakeholders (researchers, funders, industrials, editors) towards (i) standardized identification schemes and reporting for better visibility and tracing of bioresources on the web; (ii) incentive policies from hosting institutions; (iii) creation of tools allowing follow-up of their use.Tracing the use of bioresources is the first step in this process.For this purpose we have published the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline that standardizes the way bioresources are referred to in academic literature.We have launched the Open Journal of Bioresources in close collaboration with the open access publisher Ubiquity Press allowing both the resources to be cited and authors to get metrics on reuse and impact.Meanwhile, we have started developing new better adapted metrics; a first list of relevant parameters to take into account in the impact measure of bioresources has been provided.The tools proposed here foster easier access to samples and associated data as well as their optimized use, sharing and recognition for data producers.Input from the scientific information community would be highly appreciated at this stage.

Biopreservation and BiobankingVol. 15, No. 3 Brief ReportsQuality Matters: 2016 Annual Conference of the National Infrastructures for BiobankingMarika Doucet, Karl Friedrich Becker, Jens Björkman, Jacques Bonnet, Bruno Clément, Maria-Grazia Daidone, Charles Duyckaerts, Gilles Erb, Helmuth Haslacher, Paul Hofman, Berthold Huppertz, Christophe Junot, Joakim Lundeberg, Andres Metspalu, Marialuisa Lavitrano, Jan-Eric Litton, Helen M. Moore, Manuel Morente, Ben-Youssef Naimi, Uwe Oelmueller, Bill Ollier, Barbara Parodi, Liangliang Ruan, Giorgio Stanta, Paola Turano, Jim Vaught, Peter Watson, H.-Erich Wichmann, Martin Yuille, Myriam Zaomi, Kurt Zatloukal, and Georges DagherMarika DoucetBIOBANQUES Infrastructure, Inserm US13, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this author, Karl Friedrich BeckerTechnical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Search for more papers by this author, Jens BjörkmanTATAA Biocenter, Göteborg, Sweden.Search for more papers by this author, Jacques BonnetInserm U916, Institut Bergonié, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.Search for more papers by this author, Bruno ClémentBIOBANQUES Infrastructure, Inserm US13, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France.Inserm UMR991, Rennes, France.Search for more papers by this author, Maria-Grazia DaidoneFondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.Search for more papers by this author, Charles DuyckaertsInserm, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this author, Gilles ErbRoche diagnostics, Strasbourg, France.Search for more papers by this author, Helmuth HaslacherMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.Search for more papers by this author, Paul HofmanBIOBANQUES Infrastructure, Inserm US13, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France.Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), FHU OncoAge, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France.Search for more papers by this author, Berthold HuppertzMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.Search for more papers by this author, Christophe JunotCEA, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this author, Joakim LundebergScience for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Search for more papers by this author, Andres MetspaluEstonian Genome Center, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.Search for more papers by this author, Marialuisa LavitranoUniversity of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.Search for more papers by this author, Jan-Eric LittonKarolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.Search for more papers by this author, Helen M. MooreNational Cancer Institute Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch (BBRB), Rockville, Maryland.Search for more papers by this author, Manuel MorenteBiobank Unit of the Spanish national cancer center (CNIO), Madrid, Spain.Search for more papers by this author, Ben-Youssef NaimiAnyGenes, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this author, Uwe OelmuellerQIAGEN, Hilden, Germany.Search for more papers by this author, Bill OllierUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Barbara ParodiBiological Resource Center of the National Institute for Cancer Research (IRCCS AOU San Martino–IST), Genoa, Italy.Search for more papers by this author, Liangliang RuanShanghai Clinical Research Center, Shanghai, China.Search for more papers by this author, Giorgio StantaUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.Search for more papers by this author, Paola TuranoUniversity of Florence, Florence, Italy.Search for more papers by this author, Jim VaughtInternational Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER), Bethesda, Maryland.Search for more papers by this author, Peter WatsonBritish Columbia Cancer Agency's Vancouver Island Cancer Center, Victoria, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, H.-Erich WichmannHelmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Epidemiology II, Munich, Germany.Search for more papers by this author, Martin YuilleUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Myriam ZaomiBIOBANQUES Infrastructure, Inserm US13, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this author, Kurt ZatloukalMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.Search for more papers by this author, and Georges DagherBIOBANQUES Infrastructure, Inserm US13, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Jun 2017https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2016.0053AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byQuality matters: International standards for biobanking16 June 2022 | Cell Proliferation, Vol. 55, No. 8Analysis of Trends in Biospecimen Complexity in Cancer Research Over Two Decades Lauren Wotton, Brent Gali, Karlene Carvalho, Tamsin Tarling, Lise Matzke, and Peter H. Watson19 April 2022 | Biopreservation and Biobanking, Vol. 20, No. 2Biobank as a key component of supporting research in phthisiology and infectious diseases8 January 2022 | Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention, Vol. 20, No. 8Quality Management in Polish Biobanking Network—Current Status Before the Implementation of Unified and Harmonized Integrated Quality Management System10 January 2022 | Frontiers in Medicine, Vol. 8Introduction to Biobanking16 March 2022Quality Control and Risk Management in Biobanks16 March 2022Managing the Quality of Data and Metadata for Biobanks20 November 2022Purpose, Partnership, and Possibilities: The Implementation of the Dog Aging Project Biobank30 November 2022 | Biomarker Insights, Vol. 17A Biobank's Journey: Implementation of a Quality Management System and Accreditation to ISO 20387 Lara Mouttham, Susan J. Garrison, Denise L. Archer, and Marta G. Castelhano9 June 2021 | Biopreservation and Biobanking, Vol. 19, No. 3Pediatric biobanks and parents of disabled children associations opinions on establishing children repositories in developing countries1 January 2021 | Journal of Medicine and Life, Vol. 14, No. 1Establishment of a Collection of Blood-Derived Products from COVID-19 Patients for Translational Research: Experience of the LPCE Biobank (Nice, France) Virginie Tanga, Sylvie Leroy, Julien Fayada, Marame Hamila, Maryline Allegra, Zeineb Messaoudi, Christelle Bonnetaud, Virgine Lespinet, Olivier Bordone, Kevin Washetine, Jennifer Griffonnet, Charlotte Maniel, Lorène Philibert, Eric Selva, Jonathan Benzaquen, Marius Ilie, Elodie Long, Sandra Lassalle, Elisabeth Lantéri, Charles-Hugo Marquette, Véronique Hofman, and Paul Hofman15 December 2020 | Biopreservation and Biobanking, Vol. 18, No. 6Ten simple rules on how to write a standard operating procedure3 September 2020 | PLOS Computational Biology, Vol. 16, No. 9Comparison and Analysis of Two Internationally Recognized Biobanking Standards Tamsin Tarling, Sheila O'Donoghue, Rebecca Barnes, Karlene Carvalho, Brent Gali, Marta Castelhano, Anne-Marie Mes-Masson, and Peter H. Watson9 April 2020 | Biopreservation and Biobanking, Vol. 18, No. 2Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions22 May 2019 | Journal of Translational Medicine, Vol. 17, No. 1High‐Quality Biobanks: Pivotal Assets for Reproducibility of OMICS‐Data in Biomedical Translational Research5 September 2019 | PROTEOMICS, Vol. 19, No. 21-22Enriching Personalized Endometrial Cancer Research with the Harmonization of Biobanking Standards5 November 2019 | Cancers, Vol. 11, No. 11Biobanques tumorales et gestion des données complexes : enjeux actuels et futursAnnales de Pathologie, Vol. 39, No. 2Pre- and Post-analytical Factors in Biomarker Discovery10 March 2019Antibody validation: a view from the mountainsNew Biotechnology, Vol. 45Biobanks in personalized medicine13 July 2018 | Expert Review of Precision Medicine and Drug Development, Vol. 3, No. 4Establishing a Dedicated Lung Cancer Biobank at the University Center Hospital of Nice (France). Why and How?29 June 2018 | Cancers, Vol. 10, No. 7The Policies of Tumor Biobankers: Main Strategies and an Example of the Policies Adopted by the Nice Hospital Biobank, France1 July 2018SDN Biobank: Bioresource of Human Samples Associated with Functional and/or Morphological Bioimaging Results for the Study of Oncological, Cardiological, Neurological, and Metabolic DiseasesOpen Journal of Bioresources, Vol. 4 Volume 15Issue 3Jun 2017 InformationCopyright 2017, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Marika Doucet, Karl Friedrich Becker, Jens Björkman, Jacques Bonnet, Bruno Clément, Maria-Grazia Daidone, Charles Duyckaerts, Gilles Erb, Helmuth Haslacher, Paul Hofman, Berthold Huppertz, Christophe Junot, Joakim Lundeberg, Andres Metspalu, Marialuisa Lavitrano, Jan-Eric Litton, Helen M. Moore, Manuel Morente, Ben-Youssef Naimi, Uwe Oelmueller, Bill Ollier, Barbara Parodi, Liangliang Ruan, Giorgio Stanta, Paola Turano, Jim Vaught, Peter Watson, H.-Erich Wichmann, Martin Yuille, Myriam Zaomi, Kurt Zatloukal, and Georges Dagher.Quality Matters: 2016 Annual Conference of the National Infrastructures for Biobanking.Biopreservation and Biobanking.Jun 2017.270-276.http://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2016.0053Published in Volume: 15 Issue 3: June 1, 2017Online Ahead of Print:December 19, 2016PDF download

Cross-contamination of human and animal cell lines is a frequent event. For this reason, the results obtained with the same cell lines by different research groups are often not fully comparable, this leading to main reproducibility issues. The short tandem repeat (STR) profile has been proposed as a molecular method for cell line authentication. STR profile standard data sets for human cell lines were proposed by some of the leading cell banks worldwide which also have made the results of STR profiling of their cell lines available on-line. We have built the Cell Line Integrated Molecular Authentication Database (CLIMA) as a reference portal where authentication data are made available to the scientific community. This system, although already largely utilized by researchers from all over the world, presented some limitations and only included a limited amount of STR profiles. Here, we present its most recent developments: the inclusion of additional cell banks and profiles and the availability of a new identification tool.

The Interlab Cell Line Collection (ICLC) was established in 1994 as a core facility of the National Institute of Cancer Research. It supplies: human and animal cell lines; Short Tandem Repeat (STR) profiling of human cell lines; quality control service; mycoplasma detection and eradication service; safe deposit service and patent deposit service of cell lines and hybridomas. The catalogue of services is on-line, and the cell lines are distributed all over the world.

A calculation grid developed by an international expert group was tested across biobanks in six countries to evaluate costs for collections of various types of biospecimens. The assessment yielded a tool for setting specimen-access prices that were transparently related to biobank costs, and the tool was applied across three models of collaborative partnership.

With the increasing number of research biobanks and the importance of their role in supporting medical and biological research, the development and sharing of biobanking best practices and benchmarking standards has become paramount. To promote outstanding biobank services for research, the Research Biobank of the Year Competition (RBYC) has been inaugurated by the European, Middle-Eastern, and African Society for Biopreservation and Biobanking (ESBB) in October 2013. The procedures for the call and evaluation procedure, including the newly developed scoring system, are presented here. The statistics and evaluation results of the first year's applications, as well as the experiences of the jury are reported here, and improvements for the RBYC in subsequent years are proposed. Beyond offering a unique benchmarking opportunity for biobanks, the RBYC is discussed as a novel tool to enhance biobank quality, transparency, usage, connectivity, innovation, and sustainability.

This article aims to revise the ethical and social implications for clinical biobanks and their application in Italy, in the Liguria Region and in a comprehensive cancer centre in Genoa. The policies already in place in the regional network and in the IST National Institute for Cancer Research in terms of involvement of the community of patients and citizens are described, as well as the future development of initiatives aimed at improving the active participation of the community. The author is a biobank manager and not a professional bioethicist. The world of biobanks in Italy includes large numbers of small initiatives, and ‘biobankers’ are aware that public engagement is essential to ensure public trust and to give legitimacy to the research. The governance of these research infrastructures requires new tools in order to improve involvement of participants. The October 2011 Conference, ‘New Patient-Centric Perspectives in Medical Research: Ethical and Governance Challenges’ has been an important occasion for bringing together different experiences and expertise and for learning about new forms of participant-centric approaches and tools.

The number of biobanks, in particular hospital-integrated tumor biobanks (HITB), is increasing all around the world. This is the consequence of an increase in the need for human biological resources for scientific projects and more specifically, for translational and clinical research. The robustness and reproducibility of the results obtained depend greatly on the quality of the biospecimens and the associated clinical data. They also depend on the number of patients studied and on the expertise of the biobank that supplied the biospecimens. The quality of a research biobank is undoubtedly reflected in the number and overall quality of the research projects conducted with biospecimens provided by the biobank. Since the quality of a research project can be measured from the impact factor of resulting publications, this also provides some indication of the quality of a research biobank. It is necessary for the biobank community to define surrogate quality indicators, and to establish systems of evaluation in relation to current and future resource requirements. These indicators will help in the realistic assessment of biobanks by institutions and funding bodies, and they will help biobanks demonstrate their value, raise their quality standards, and compete for funding. Given that biobanks are expensive structures to maintain, funding issues are particularly important, especially in the current economic climate. Use of performance indicators may also contribute to the development of a biobank impact factor or bioresource research impact factor (BRIF). Here we review four major categories of indicators that appear to be useful for the evaluation of a(m) HITB (quality, activity, scientific productivity, and visibility). In addition, we propose a scoring system to measure the chosen indicators.

Advances in molecular epidemiology and translational research have led to the need for biospecimen collection. The Cancer of the Respiratory Tract (CREST) biorepository is concerned with pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) and lung cancer (LC). The biorepository staff has collected demographic and epidemiological data directly from consenting subjects using a structured questionnaire, in agreement with The Public Population Project in Genomics (P(3)G). Clinical and follow-up data were collected. Sample data were also recorded. The architecture is based on a database designed with Microsoft Access. Data standardization was carried out to conform with established conventions or procedures. As from January 31, 2011, the overall number of recruited subjects was 1,857 (454 LC, 245 MM, 130 other cancers and 1,028 controls). Due to its infrastructure, CREST was able to join international projects, sharing samples and/or data with other research groups in the field. The data management system allows CREST to be involved, through a minimum data set, in the national project for the construction of the Italian network of Oncologic BioBanks (RIBBO), and in the infrastructure of a pan-European biobank network (BBMRI). The CREST biorepository is a valuable tool for translational studies on respiratory tract diseases, because of its simple and efficient infrastructure.

OBJECTIVES:The Cancer of RESpiratory Tract (CREST) biorepository was established to investigate biological mechanisms and to develop tools and strategies for primary and secondary prevention of respiratory tract cancer. The CREST biorepository is focused on pleural malignant mesothelioma, a rare and severe cancer linked to asbestos exposure whose incidence is particularly high in the Ligurian region.METHODS:The CREST biorepository includes biological specimens from (a) patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer, (b) patients with nonneoplastic respiratory conditions, and (c) control subjects. Whole blood, plasma, serum, lymphocytes, pleural fluid, saliva, and biopsies are collected, and a questionnaire is administered. Collection, transportation, and storage are done according to international standards.RESULTS:As of January 31, 2008, the overall number of subjects recruited was 1,590 (446 lung cancer, 209 pleural malignant mesothelioma, and 935 controls). The biorepository includes a total of 10,055 aliquots (4,741 serum; 3,082 plasma; 1,599 whole blood; 633 pleural fluid; and 561 lymphocytes) and 107 biopsies. Demographic, clinical, and epidemiologic information is collected for each subject and processed in a dedicated database.CONCLUSIONS:The CREST biorepository is a valuable tool for molecular epidemiology and translational studies. This structure relies on a network of contacts with local health districts that allows for an active search for patients. This is a particularly efficient approach, especially when the object of the study is a rare cancer type. The CREST experience suggests that the presence of limited resources can be overcome by the biorepository specialization, the high quality of the epidemiologic information, and the variety of samples.