Biobanking after Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Slice and Punch Protocols.

IF 1.6 4区 生物学
Anders Blilie, Guro F Giskeødegård, Åsmund Nybøen, Sebastian Krossa, Elise Midtbust, Einar Gudlaugsson, Ole Gunnar Aasprong, Haakon Skogseth, Jostein Halgunset, Emiel A M Janssen, May-Britt Tessem, Kristin Austlid Taskén
{"title":"Biobanking after Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Slice and Punch Protocols.","authors":"Anders Blilie, Guro F Giskeødegård, Åsmund Nybøen, Sebastian Krossa, Elise Midtbust, Einar Gudlaugsson, Ole Gunnar Aasprong, Haakon Skogseth, Jostein Halgunset, Emiel A M Janssen, May-Britt Tessem, Kristin Austlid Taskén","doi":"10.1089/bio.2024.0175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Biobanking of prostate cancer tissue is crucial for advancing biomarker-guided precision medicine. However, there is no standardized optimal protocol for biobanking prostatectomy specimens. This study aims to compare the representativeness and sustainability of two biobanking protocols-\"Punch\" and \"Slice\"-currently used in Norway. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Fresh frozen tissue from 40 radical prostatectomy specimens was biobanked using both the Punch and Slice protocols. Following macroscopic evaluation, a 2 mm thick transverse slice of the prostate (Slice protocol) was collected and stored in an ultra-freezer for future drill biopsy subsampling, guided by histopathological assessment of adjacent formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections. After the slice was collected, five cylindrical tissue samples were punched from the cut surfaces (Punch protocol). Statistical analyses were conducted to compare the sampling precision and time consumption of both protocols. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Cancerous tissue was successfully sampled in 87.5% of cases using the Punch protocol and 75% of cases using the Slice protocol. Both methods yielded comparable results in terms of the number of cancerous cores and the ability to sample tissue representing the highest Gleason grade. The mean biobanking time of tissue slices was 4.9 minutes compared to 15.1 minutes for the ready-to-use tissue punches. Both methods have previously been shown to provide high-quality RNA extracts. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Both biobanking protocols are effective for sampling prostate cancer tissue, with no significant difference in precision or quality. The choice between protocols should consider factors such as resource availability, tissue quantity, and specific research needs. The Punch protocol is less resource-intensive overall, while the Slice protocol collects vastly more tissue, has a shorter period of ischemia, and provides detailed mapping of biobanked components, allowing for further subsampling at multiple time points.</p>","PeriodicalId":55358,"journal":{"name":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2024.0175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Biobanking of prostate cancer tissue is crucial for advancing biomarker-guided precision medicine. However, there is no standardized optimal protocol for biobanking prostatectomy specimens. This study aims to compare the representativeness and sustainability of two biobanking protocols-"Punch" and "Slice"-currently used in Norway. Methods: Fresh frozen tissue from 40 radical prostatectomy specimens was biobanked using both the Punch and Slice protocols. Following macroscopic evaluation, a 2 mm thick transverse slice of the prostate (Slice protocol) was collected and stored in an ultra-freezer for future drill biopsy subsampling, guided by histopathological assessment of adjacent formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections. After the slice was collected, five cylindrical tissue samples were punched from the cut surfaces (Punch protocol). Statistical analyses were conducted to compare the sampling precision and time consumption of both protocols. Results: Cancerous tissue was successfully sampled in 87.5% of cases using the Punch protocol and 75% of cases using the Slice protocol. Both methods yielded comparable results in terms of the number of cancerous cores and the ability to sample tissue representing the highest Gleason grade. The mean biobanking time of tissue slices was 4.9 minutes compared to 15.1 minutes for the ready-to-use tissue punches. Both methods have previously been shown to provide high-quality RNA extracts. Conclusion: Both biobanking protocols are effective for sampling prostate cancer tissue, with no significant difference in precision or quality. The choice between protocols should consider factors such as resource availability, tissue quantity, and specific research needs. The Punch protocol is less resource-intensive overall, while the Slice protocol collects vastly more tissue, has a shorter period of ischemia, and provides detailed mapping of biobanked components, allowing for further subsampling at multiple time points.

根治性前列腺切除术后的生物银行:切片和穿孔方案的比较。
背景:前列腺癌组织的生物银行对推进生物标志物引导的精准医学至关重要。然而,对于前列腺切除标本的生物库,目前还没有标准化的最佳方案。本研究旨在比较两种生物银行协议的代表性和可持续性-“Punch”和“Slice”-目前在挪威使用。方法:采用Punch和Slice两种方法对40例根治性前列腺切除术标本进行冷冻保存。在宏观评估后,收集2毫米厚的前列腺横切片(切片方案)并保存在超冷冻机中,用于将来的钻孔活检亚采样,指导下对相邻的福尔马林固定石蜡包埋组织切片进行组织病理学评估。切片收集后,从切口表面打孔5个圆柱形组织样本(打孔方案)。统计分析比较了两种方案的采样精度和时间消耗。结果:使用Punch方案的87.5%的病例和使用Slice方案的75%的病例成功取样了癌组织。两种方法在癌核的数量和对代表最高Gleason分级的组织取样的能力方面产生了相当的结果。组织切片的平均生物库时间为4.9分钟,而现成的组织穿孔的平均生物库时间为15.1分钟。这两种方法以前都被证明可以提供高质量的RNA提取物。结论:两种方法对前列腺癌组织取样均有效,精度和质量无显著差异。方案之间的选择应考虑诸如资源可用性、组织数量和特定研究需求等因素。总的来说,Punch方案的资源密集程度较低,而Slice方案收集的组织更多,缺血时间更短,并提供生物银行成分的详细映射,允许在多个时间点进行进一步的子采样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biopreservation and Biobanking
Biopreservation and Biobanking Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
自引率
12.50%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Biopreservation and Biobanking is the first journal to provide a unifying forum for the peer-reviewed communication of recent advances in the emerging and evolving field of biospecimen procurement, processing, preservation and banking, distribution, and use. The Journal publishes a range of original articles focusing on current challenges and problems in biopreservation, and advances in methods to address these issues related to the processing of macromolecules, cells, and tissues for research. In a new section dedicated to Emerging Markets and Technologies, the Journal highlights the emergence of new markets and technologies that are either adopting or disrupting the biobank framework as they imprint on society. The solutions presented here are anticipated to help drive innovation within the biobank community. Biopreservation and Biobanking also explores the ethical, legal, and societal considerations surrounding biobanking and biorepository operation. Ideas and practical solutions relevant to improved quality, efficiency, and sustainability of repositories, and relating to their management, operation and oversight are discussed as well.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信