Quality really matters: The need to improve specimen quality in biomedical research

Histopathology

Volumn 61, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1003-1005

  Simeon Dubach, Daniel ^a   Burt, Alastair D ^b   Hall, Peter A ^c,d  

^a Medservice Biobanking consulting and services ^*  (Switzerland)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c KING FAISAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER   (Saudi Arabia)

^d ALFAISAL UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DONOR; EDITORIAL; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES; TISSUE SECTION;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 84870363994     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12060     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Moore HM, Compton CC, Alper J et al. International approaches to advancing biospecimen science. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20; 729-732.
2. Compton C. Getting to personalized cancer medicine: taking out the garbage. Cancer 2007; 110; 1641-1643.
3. Simeon-Dubach D, Perren A. Better provenance for biobank samples. Nature 2011; 475; 454-455.
4. Silberman S. Libraries of Flesh: The Story State of Human Tissue Storage. [Last accessed 18 September 2012]. Available from: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_biobanks/2010.
5. Massett HA, Atkinson NL, Weber D et al. Assessing the need for a standardized cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB): findings from a national survey with cancer researchers. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011; 42; 8-15.
6. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10; 712.
7. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012; 483; 531-533.
8. ISBER. Best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrival, and distribution of biological material for research. Biopreserv Biobank 2012; 10; 79-161.
9. Anonymous. Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools. Draft Guidance (US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, CDER, October 2010). [Last accessed 18 September 2012]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceCo mplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM230597.pdf. 2010.
10. Groenen PJ, Blokx WA, Diepenbroek C et al. Preparing pathology for personalized medicine: possibilities for improvement of the preanalytical phase. Histopathology 2011; 59; 1-7.
11. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Biopreserv Biobank 2011; 9; 57-70.
12. Moore HM, Kelly A, McShane LM et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Clin. Chim. Acta 2012; 413; 1305.
13. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J. Proteome Res. 2011; 10; 3429-3438.
14. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119; 92-101.
15. The BRISQ Report. [Last accessed 18 September 2012]. Available from: http://obertools.pathology.ubc.ca/brisq/.