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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Biobanking after Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Slice and Punch Protocols.
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.
Biopreservation and BiobankingBiochemistry, 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.