ESR Position Paper on Imaging Biobanks

In March 2014 the European Society of Radiology (ESR) established a dedicated working group (ESR WG on Imaging Biobanks) aimed at monitoring the existing imaging biobanks in Europe, promoting the federation of imaging biobanks and communication of their findings in a white paper. The WG provided the following statements: (1) Imaging biobanks can be defined as “organised databases of medical images and associated imaging biomarkers (radiology and beyond) shared among multiple researchers, and linked to other biorepositories”. (2) The immediate purpose of imaging biobanks should be to allow the generation of imaging biomarkers for use in research studies and to support biological validation of existing and novel imaging biomarkers. (3) A long-term scope of imaging biobanks should be the creation of a network/federation of such repositories integrated with the already-existing biobanking network. The aim of the WG was to investigate the existence, consistency, geographical distribution and type of imaging biobanks in Europe. A survey among ESR members resulted in the identification of 27 imaging biobanks, mostly disease-oriented and designed for research and clinical reference. In 80 % access to imaging biobanks is restricted. Key points • Imaging biobanks are “shared databases of imaging biomarkers, linked to biorepositories”. • Exploitation of traditional and imaging biobanks is meaningful for “personalised medicine”. • A European imaging biobank network would significantly boost research in the imaging domain.

[1]  H. Longstaff,et al.  Ethical Considerations in Biobanks: How a Public Health Ethics Perspective Sheds New Light on Old Controversies , 2015, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[2]  Daniel J Marcus,et al.  Whitepapers on Imaging Infrastructure for Research Paper 3 . Security and Privacy , 2011 .

[3]  Harry J de Koning,et al.  Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  W. Kannel,et al.  The Framingham Study An Epidemiological Approach to Coronary Heart Disease , 1966, Circulation.

[5]  S. Kardia,et al.  Public Trust in Health Information Sharing: Implications for Biobanking and Electronic Health Record Systems , 2015, Journal of personalized medicine.

[6]  Sharon F Terry,et al.  Genetic Alliance Registry and BioBank: a novel disease advocacy-driven research solution. , 2011, Personalized medicine.

[7]  Mithat Gönen,et al.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[8]  Rebecca O Barnes,et al.  A proposed schema for classifying human research biobanks. , 2011, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[9]  J. Cerhan,et al.  Biobanks and personalized medicine , 2014, Clinical genetics.

[10]  D. Cooper,et al.  A legal framework for biobanking: the German experience , 2007, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  Paul M. Parizel,et al.  European Society of Radiology (ESR) , 2015 .

[12]  G. Bottiroli,et al.  Autofluorescence Spectroscopy and Imaging: A Tool for Biomedical Research and Diagnosis , 2014, European journal of histochemistry : EJH.

[13]  Robert Hewitt,et al.  Defining biobank. , 2013, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[14]  Mark Woodbridge,et al.  MRIdb: Medical Image Management for Biobank Research , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[15]  Kurt Zatloukal,et al.  Biobanks: transnational, European and global networks. , 2007, Briefings in functional genomics & proteomics.

[16]  F. Grannis National lung screening trial limitations and public health policy. , 2014, Oncology.

[17]  Marco Eichelberg,et al.  Enhancing IHE XDS for Federated Clinical Affinity Domain Support , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.

[18]  H. Barnhart,et al.  The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[19]  G. Ginsburg,et al.  The path to personalized medicine. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[20]  J. Linseisen,et al.  Public perceptions of cohort studies and biobanks in Germany. , 2014, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[21]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Medical imaging in personalised medicine: a white paper of the research committee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) , 2011, Insights into imaging.

[22]  V. Yaghmai,et al.  A radiologist's guide to treatment response criteria in oncologic imaging: functional, molecular, and disease-specific imaging biomarkers. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  F. Moll,et al.  Biobanking in Atherosclerotic Disease, Opportunities and Pitfalls , 2011, Current cardiology reviews.

[24]  Robert E. Hewitt,et al.  Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine , 2011, Current opinion in oncology.

[25]  Tony Pan,et al.  Imaging Infrastructure for Research. Part 2. Data Management Practices , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[26]  Jeffrey W. Prescott,et al.  Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: The Application of Advanced Image Processing and Analysis to Clinical and Preclinical Decision Making , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[27]  Tony Pan,et al.  Whitepapers on Imaging Infrastructure for Research , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[28]  European Society of Radiology ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers , 2013, Insights into Imaging.

[29]  Tony Pan,et al.  Whitepapers on Imaging Infrastructure for Research Part Three: Security and Privacy , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[30]  Arash Naeim,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  K. Hahm,et al.  Molecular Imaging for Theranostics in Gastroenterology: One Stone to Kill Two Birds , 2014, Clinical endoscopy.

[32]  Jodyn Platt,et al.  Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[33]  P. Matthews,et al.  Imaging in population science: cardiovascular magnetic resonance in 100,000 participants of UK Biobank - rationale, challenges and approaches , 2013, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[34]  StarkbaumJohannes,et al.  Public perceptions of cohort studies and biobanks in Germany. , 2014 .

[35]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel , 2014, Insights into Imaging.

[36]  C. Hassan,et al.  Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial , 2014, Trials.

[37]  M. Mascalchi,et al.  Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study) , 2013, Trials.

[38]  Leonard W. D'Avolio,et al.  Detours on the road to personalized medicine: barriers to biomarker validation and implementation. , 2011, JAMA.

[39]  Bok-Ghee Han,et al.  Current Status, Challenges, Policies, and Bioethics of Biobanks , 2013, Genomics & informatics.