Cargando…

Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017

Background: The Cooperative Human Tissue Network, Midwestern Division, is a National Cancer Institute-funded program that provides quality research biospecimens to qualified investigators. Consented human tissues are procured according to researcher specifications for weight (size) and preservation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nohle, David G., Mandt, Randal L., Couce, Marta E., Parwani, Anil V., Ayers, Leona W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30379574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0068
_version_ 1783383161473859584
author Nohle, David G.
Mandt, Randal L.
Couce, Marta E.
Parwani, Anil V.
Ayers, Leona W.
author_facet Nohle, David G.
Mandt, Randal L.
Couce, Marta E.
Parwani, Anil V.
Ayers, Leona W.
author_sort Nohle, David G.
collection PubMed
description Background: The Cooperative Human Tissue Network, Midwestern Division, is a National Cancer Institute-funded program that provides quality research biospecimens to qualified investigators. Consented human tissues are procured according to researcher specifications for weight (size) and preservation type; weights of samples in significant demand and limited supply are negotiated. Weights of procured tissues are entered into a dedicated biospecimen database. This study seeks to provide guidance for acceptable tissue weights for researchers. Methods: Tissue weights by year and anatomic site were retrieved from the database for primary malignant tissues. The total number of tissues included was 5141. Statistical evaluation of data included the number of tissues for each year, anatomic site as well as minimum, maximum, average weights, standard deviation, and standard error. Anatomic sites with few tissues were excluded. Results: “Stock price” type graphs were constructed to show an average as “volume” with both full weight ranges and range that accommodated 80% of tissues. Average weight and number of sample trends varied by anatomic site. Tissues fell into four weight groups; 10 and 90 percentile boundaries were calculated for each. Smallest average research tissue weights for middle 80% were recorded for prostate and oropharynx (140 mg). Second weight group included tonsil, thyroid, breast, oral cavity, larynx, pancreas, salivary gland, skin, tongue, lung, and parotid (265 mg). The third group included stomach, cervix, colon, esophagus, endometrium, bone, brain, bladder, small bowel, uterus, liver, kidney lymph node, adrenal, and ovary (513 mg). The fourth and heaviest weight group included soft tissue tumors and spleen (1201 mg). Conclusions: Since tissue weights are not usually included in recommendations for research tissue procurement or for frozen tissues stored in biorepositories, we offer this data as a practical guide to researcher acceptable tissue weights for selected sites based on a 3-year researcher request and acceptance history.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6308276
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63082762018-12-28 Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017 Nohle, David G. Mandt, Randal L. Couce, Marta E. Parwani, Anil V. Ayers, Leona W. Biopreserv Biobank Original Articles Background: The Cooperative Human Tissue Network, Midwestern Division, is a National Cancer Institute-funded program that provides quality research biospecimens to qualified investigators. Consented human tissues are procured according to researcher specifications for weight (size) and preservation type; weights of samples in significant demand and limited supply are negotiated. Weights of procured tissues are entered into a dedicated biospecimen database. This study seeks to provide guidance for acceptable tissue weights for researchers. Methods: Tissue weights by year and anatomic site were retrieved from the database for primary malignant tissues. The total number of tissues included was 5141. Statistical evaluation of data included the number of tissues for each year, anatomic site as well as minimum, maximum, average weights, standard deviation, and standard error. Anatomic sites with few tissues were excluded. Results: “Stock price” type graphs were constructed to show an average as “volume” with both full weight ranges and range that accommodated 80% of tissues. Average weight and number of sample trends varied by anatomic site. Tissues fell into four weight groups; 10 and 90 percentile boundaries were calculated for each. Smallest average research tissue weights for middle 80% were recorded for prostate and oropharynx (140 mg). Second weight group included tonsil, thyroid, breast, oral cavity, larynx, pancreas, salivary gland, skin, tongue, lung, and parotid (265 mg). The third group included stomach, cervix, colon, esophagus, endometrium, bone, brain, bladder, small bowel, uterus, liver, kidney lymph node, adrenal, and ovary (513 mg). The fourth and heaviest weight group included soft tissue tumors and spleen (1201 mg). Conclusions: Since tissue weights are not usually included in recommendations for research tissue procurement or for frozen tissues stored in biorepositories, we offer this data as a practical guide to researcher acceptable tissue weights for selected sites based on a 3-year researcher request and acceptance history. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2018-12-01 2018-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6308276/ /pubmed/30379574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0068 Text en © David G. Nohle et al., 2018; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Nohle, David G.
Mandt, Randal L.
Couce, Marta E.
Parwani, Anil V.
Ayers, Leona W.
Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title_full Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title_fullStr Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title_full_unstemmed Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title_short Acceptable Weight Ranges for Research Tissue Procurement and Biorepositories, 2015–2017
title_sort acceptable weight ranges for research tissue procurement and biorepositories, 2015–2017
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30379574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0068
work_keys_str_mv AT nohledavidg acceptableweightrangesforresearchtissueprocurementandbiorepositories20152017
AT mandtrandall acceptableweightrangesforresearchtissueprocurementandbiorepositories20152017
AT coucemartae acceptableweightrangesforresearchtissueprocurementandbiorepositories20152017
AT parwanianilv acceptableweightrangesforresearchtissueprocurementandbiorepositories20152017
AT ayersleonaw acceptableweightrangesforresearchtissueprocurementandbiorepositories20152017