Quality and reporting practices in an Australian cancer biobank cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Inadequate research biospecimen quality may adversely impact research translation to clinical practice. Despite the development and endorsement of external quality assurance (QA) programs and biospecimen quality reporting tools, there has been little examination of relevant biobank practices.

DESIGN AND METHODS

An online survey was designed to describe the use and communication of QA and quality control (QC) measures within an Australian cancer biobank cohort (n=21), classified according to access policy. Survey questions examined the development and maintenance of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), other specific QA and biospecimen QC activities, and communication of biospecimen QC results to researchers.

RESULTS

Over three quarters of biobanks utilised regularly-reviewed, best-practice-referenced SOPs, and most biobanks undertook at least one QC activity. Whereas all open-access biobanks (n=11) utilised SOPs and undertook at least one QC activity, these practices were significantly less frequent in restricted-access biobanks (n=10). There were overall low rates of recording the SPREC code, with increased but incomplete recording of Tier 1 BRISQ data. Open-access biobanks were significantly more likely to provide biospecimen QC results to researchers, and to report receiving requests for QC results or additional sample data.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved resourcing and education may be required to boost current levels of QA and QC activities and reporting by cancer biobanks.