Search

Introduction: It is important for many research stakeholders to know how many biobanks exist. There are several potential data sources that might be expected to provide biobank numbers, such as institutions, research funders, and literature databases (e.g., PubMed), but in practice this information is rarely available and is hard to find. However, the maturation of several online health research biobank locators (also known as directories and catalogs) that relate to 12 countries and/or states has now provided some initial data to address the question of how many health research biobanks exist in relation to population size. Methods: We have analyzed four biobank locators: the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium directory, the Canadian Tissue Repository Network locator, the Australian New South Wales Australia Health Pathology locator, and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Tissue Directory. Results: We conclude that across these locators, and in those regions with potential for high research capacity as indicated by comparable gross domestic products, there are 11-30 health research biobanks/million population (2 large biobanks with >1000 samples and a further 9-28 are medium-small biobanks). Conclusion: Many locators were established primarily to increase utilization of biobanks. However, locators may be more useful in tracking the numbers of biobanks and in assisting funders and institutions to monitor research strategy and prevent unnecessary duplication of biobank resources.

Background: Tumor biobanks are a common research infrastructure. As a collection of biospecimens and annotated data collected to support a multitude of research projects, biobanks facilitate access...

Tumor biobanks have become critical components of the cancer research infrastructure. Consideration of how to place appropriate values on tumor biobanks is important for all stakeholders. At the level of individual biobanks, value is important in determining how to contribute to, utilize, and fund biobanks. At the level of the research system, value is important in determining how to evaluate, rationalize, and sustain or modify the investments in this infrastructure. This review considers approaches and indicators for evaluation of a biobank with a particular focus on utilization, as one important indicator of value, from the perspective of the researcher and funder. The patterns of utilization and the influence of different phases and approaches of research, and types of biobank are described, as well as strategies for biobanks to increase utilization and therefore their value to research.

In 2011, Watson and Barnes proposed a schema for classifying biobanks into 3 groups (mono-, oligo-, and poly-user), primarily based upon biospecimen access policies. We used results from a recent comprehensive survey of cancer biobanks in New South Wales, Australia to assess the applicability of this biobank classification schema in an Australian setting. Cancer biobanks were identified using publically available data, and by consulting with research managers. A comprehensive survey was developed and administered through a face-to-face setting. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel™ 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics™ version 21.0. The cancer biobank cohort (n=23) represented 5 mono-user biobanks, 7 oligo-user biobanks, and 11 poly-user biobanks, and was analyzed as two groups (mono-/oligo- versus poly-user biobanks). Poly-user biobanks employed significantly more full-time equivalent staff, and were significantly more likely to have a website, share staff between biobanks, access governance support, utilize quality control measures, be aware of biobanking best practice documents, and offer staff training. Mono-/oligo-user biobanks were significantly more likely to seek advice from other biobanks. Our results further delineate a biobank classification system that is primarily based on access policy, and demonstrate its relevance in an Australian setting.