Table 3. Responses of biospecimen researchers to questions on the SEER Residual Tissue Repository (RTR).
| A. Background of biospecimen research questionnaire respondents | ||
|---|---|---|
| Q1. If you conduct scientific research, please indicate your primary affiliation. (174 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Academic | 117 (67%) | |
|
| ||
| Government | 24 (14%) | |
|
| ||
| Other | 33 (19%) | |
|
| ||
| Q2. Have you worked with biospecimens from the SEER RTR in the past? (159 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Yes | 30 (19%) | |
|
| ||
| No | 129 (81%) | |
|
| ||
| Q3. If you are aware of the SEER RTR but have not worked with this resource in the past, please indicate why and continue with Question 8. (90 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Plan to apply once preliminary results are obtained or obtain funding | 36 (40%) | |
|
| ||
| Did not meet research needs | 28 (31%) | |
|
| ||
| Unaware of RTR resource | 15 (17%) | |
|
| ||
| Other | 11 (12%) | |
| B. Responses of SEER Biospecimen researchers on SEER RTR research use and potential (n = 30) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Q4. If you answered YES to question 2, what were your research objectives in using the SEER RTR resource? (26 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Biomarker identification/validation | 8 (31%) | |
|
| ||
| Whole-genome analysis | 7 (27%) | |
|
| ||
| Multivariate molecular profiling | 6 (23%) | |
|
| ||
| Other | 5 (19%) | |
|
| ||
| Q5. Did the SEER RTR resource enable you to achieve your research goals? (22 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Yes | 19 (86%) | |
|
| ||
| No | 3 (14%) | |
|
| ||
| Q6a. Please comment on any advantages (strengths) of using the SEER RTR as a research resource. (24 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Population coverage | 10 (42%) | |
|
| ||
| Number of biospecimens | 7 (29%) | |
|
| ||
| SEER annotation (demographic, clinical, and survival data) | 4 (17%) | |
|
| ||
| Cost/speed of access (convenience) | 3 (13%) | |
|
| ||
| Q6b. Please comment on any disadvantages (weaknesses) of using the SEER RTR as a research resource. (22 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Insufficient sample size | 8 (36%) | |
|
| ||
| Incomplete QC documentation | 8 (36%) | |
|
| ||
| Incomplete clinical annotation | 6 (27%) | |
|
| ||
| Q7. Please provide suggestions for improving your ability to access and utilize the SEER RTR biospecimens and associated data. (24 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Increase number of biospecimens | 6 (25%) | |
|
| ||
| Improve efficiency of access to biospecimens and associated data | 6 (25%) | |
|
| ||
| Streamline application process (IRB/MTA) | 5 (21%) | |
|
| ||
| Increase RTR funding/staff | 4 (17%) | |
|
| ||
| More targeted annotation of clinical data | 3 (13%) | |
| C. Future development of SEER biospecimen resources | ||
|---|---|---|
| Q8. Please elaborate on specific research objectives that you would like to see addressed in the future using the SEER RTR. (43 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Prognostic studies | 14 (33%) | |
|
| ||
| Other | 12 (28%) | |
|
| ||
| Biomarker identification/validation | 9 (21%) | |
|
| ||
| Molecular profiling for tumor classification | 8 (19%) | |
|
| ||
| Q9. Please comment on methods or techniques that could be used to assess the tissue quality of SEER RTR biospecimens to enhance their utility for advanced research applications, such as next-generation sequencing. (25 responses) | ||
|
| ||
| Sample QC* | 16 (64%) | |
|
| ||
| Pathology review | 3 (12%) | |
|
| ||
| Upgraded annotation | 3 (12%) | |
|
| ||
| Age-matched control | 2 (8%) | |
|
| ||
| Adjacent tissue samples | 1 (4%) | |
|
| ||
| Q10. Please indicate the importance of the following standard SEER data items for research using SEER RTR biospecimens. (70 responses, selection of multiple categories allowed) | ||
|
| ||
| Tissue collection, processing, and storage | 41 (58%) | |
|
| ||
| Type of treatment | 39 (56%) | |
|
| ||
| Age of specimens | 37 (52%) | |
|
| ||
| Risk factors | 30 (42%) | |
|
| ||
| Type of health insurance | 3 (4%) | |
*
Immunohistochemistry, In situ hybridization, Polymerase chain reaction