James A Robb1, Margaret L Gulley, Patrick L Fitzgibbons, Mary F Kennedy, L Mark Cosentino, Kay Washington, Rajesh C Dash, Philip A Branton, Scott D Jewell, Rosanna L Lapham. 1. From the Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Gulley); the Department of Pathology, St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California (Dr Fitzgibbons); the College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms Kennedy); the Department of Translational Medicine, Biogen Idec, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Dr Cosentino); the Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (Dr Washington); the Department of Pathology, Duke Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Dash); the Biorepositories and Biospecimens Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland (Dr Branton); the Department of Biospecimen Science, Van Andel Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan (Dr Jewell); and the Department of Pathology, Spartanburg Regional Medical Center, Spartanburg, South Carolina (Dr Lapham).
Abstract
CONTEXT: Biospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this study. OBJECTIVE: To define the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that should be attached to every collected biospecimen and to provide a complete list of such variables, along with their relative importance, which can vary, depending on downstream use, institutional needs, and information technology capabilities. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a Biorepository Working Group to develop a ranked list of the preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the working group were experts in anatomic, clinical, and molecular pathology; biobanking; medical informatics; and accreditation. Several members had experience with federal government programs, such as the National Cancer Institute's Biospecimens and Biorepository Branch and the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Center Program. Potential preanalytic variables were identified and ranked along with available supporting evidence, definitions, and potential negative effects if the variable was not attached to the biospecimen. Additional national and international stakeholders reviewed the draft manuscript. RESULTS: The ranked listing of 170 preanalytic variables produced can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and/or research biorepository processes. Conclusions.-In our collective experience, it is often difficult to choose which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research. The provided ranked list should aid in the selection of preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.
CONTEXT: Biospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this study. OBJECTIVE: To define the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that should be attached to every collected biospecimen and to provide a complete list of such variables, along with their relative importance, which can vary, depending on downstream use, institutional needs, and information technology capabilities. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a Biorepository Working Group to develop a ranked list of the preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the working group were experts in anatomic, clinical, and molecular pathology; biobanking; medical informatics; and accreditation. Several members had experience with federal government programs, such as the National Cancer Institute's Biospecimens and Biorepository Branch and the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Center Program. Potential preanalytic variables were identified and ranked along with available supporting evidence, definitions, and potential negative effects if the variable was not attached to the biospecimen. Additional national and international stakeholders reviewed the draft manuscript. RESULTS: The ranked listing of 170 preanalytic variables produced can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and/or research biorepository processes. Conclusions.-In our collective experience, it is often difficult to choose which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research. The provided ranked list should aid in the selection of preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.
Authors: Rajesh C Dash; James A Robb; David L Booker; Wen-Chi Foo; David L Witte; Lynn Bry Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Sambit K Mohanty; Amita T Mistry; Waqas Amin; Anil V Parwani; Andrew K Pople; Linda Schmandt; Sharon B Winters; Erin Milliken; Paula Kim; Nancy B Whelan; Ghada Farhat; Jonathan Melamed; Emanuela Taioli; Rajiv Dhir; Harvey I Pass; Michael J Becich Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Shannon J McCall; Philip A Branton; Victoria M Blanc; Sarah M Dry; Julie M Gastier-Foster; James H Harrison; Scott D Jewell; Rajesh C Dash; Rebecca C Obeng; Joan Rose; Dawna L Mateski; Albi Liubinskas; James A Robb; Nilsa C Ramirez; Kathi Shea Journal: Biopreserv Biobank Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Maria E Hassis; Richard K Niles; Miles N Braten; Matthew E Albertolle; H Ewa Witkowska; Carl A Hubel; Susan J Fisher; Katherine E Williams Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Melissa A Simon; Erika E de la Riva; Raymond Bergan; Carrie Norbeck; June M McKoy; Piotr Kulesza; XinQi Dong; Julian Schink; Linda Fleisher Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Angela R Omilian; Gary R Zirpoli; Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Song Yao; Leighton Stein; Warren Davis; Karen L Head; Priya Nair; Thaer Khoury; Christine B Ambrosone; Wiam Bshara Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2020-04