Laboratory Medicine and Biorepositories

Biorepositories provide access to specimens for biomarker investigation of subjects with or without a given condition or clinical outcome. They must record collection, transport, processing, and storage information to ensure that specimens are fit-for-use once a particular analyte has been identified as a candidate biomarker. Ongoing (post-collection) clinical and outcome documentation provides more value to researchers than a static, clinical snapshot at the time of collection. Frequently, biorepository specimens are residua from those obtained for clinical management of a patient; whether routine clinical processing is acceptable, given the stability profile for a given analyte, will dictate whether non-standard processing will be required. Introducing nonstandard steps into clinical lab processing in order to preserve an analyte such as RNA or protein requires careful workflow planning. Accreditation for biorepositories is now available; standards have been developed to ensure that biorepository personnel, equipment, laboratory space, information systems, and policies/procedures, including those for quality management, meet the same high standards by which clinical laboratories are judged and accredited. An additional accreditation standard relates to the development of, and adherence to, policies surrounding informed consent. The current regulatory landscape for pediatric specimen research requires consideration of many issues around informed consent, assent, and reconsent at the age of majority for the collection and use of identifiable specimens for research. Consideration of these requirements based on the current (and evolving) regulatory landscape can be difficult, in light of pending legislative and regulatory changes. Issues surrounding return of incidental findings is another challenge for institutional review boards.

[1]  Fotini Betsou,et al.  Identification of evidence-based biospecimen quality-control tools: a report of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) Biospecimen Science Working Group. , 2013, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[2]  F. Miller,et al.  Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. , 2005, JAMA.

[3]  J. Robert,et al.  Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[4]  Lisa Mahanta,et al.  The Information Technology Infrastructure for the Translational Genomics Core and the Partners Biobank at Partners Personalized Medicine , 2016, Journal of personalized medicine.

[5]  W. Chung,et al.  Professionally Responsible Disclosure of Genomic Sequencing Results in Pediatric Practice , 2015, Pediatrics.

[6]  R. Sharp,et al.  Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children , 2016, Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines & Policies.

[7]  Heidi L Rehm,et al.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. , 2014, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  K. McClellan,et al.  Familial Communication of Research Results: A Need to Know? , 2011, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[9]  Charles Weijer,et al.  Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. , 2003, IRB.

[10]  Kenneth D. Mandl,et al.  Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact , 2007, Science.

[11]  E. Clayton Informed Consent and Biobanks , 2005, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[12]  Jim Vaught,et al.  Preanalytical variables affecting the integrity of human biospecimens in biobanking. , 2015, Clinical chemistry.

[13]  Timothy F Cloughesy,et al.  The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings. , 2014, Clinical biochemistry.

[14]  Soyoung Yoo,et al.  Establishing the role of honest broker: bridging the gap between protecting personal health data and clinical research efficiency , 2015, PeerJ.

[15]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  D. Sinnett,et al.  Pediatric Research and the Return of Individual Research Results , 2011, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[17]  J. Ma,et al.  Capacity to Consent to Research in Patients with Acute Pain: A Pilot Study. , 2015, IRB.

[18]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[19]  R. Sharp Downsizing genomic medicine: Approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  F. Guadagni,et al.  Ensuring Sample Quality for Biomarker Discovery Studies - Use of ICT Tools to Trace Biosample Life-cycle. , 2015, Cancer genomics & proteomics.

[21]  Christine Weiner,et al.  Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). , 2014, American journal of epidemiology.

[22]  Gail P Jarvik,et al.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[23]  Rakesh Nagarajan,et al.  caTissue Suite to OpenSpecimen: Developing an extensible, open source, web-based biobanking management system , 2015, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[24]  G. Henderson,et al.  Public Comments on Proposed Regulatory Reforms That Would Impact Biospecimen Research: The Good, the Bad, and the Puzzling. , 2015, IRB.

[25]  John A. Lynch,et al.  Practical guidance on informed consent for pediatric participants in a biorepository. , 2014, Mayo Clinic proceedings.