Tumor marker discovery by expression profiling RNA from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues

Optimising sample collection for placental research

Biobanks provide an important repository of samples for research purposes. However, for those samples to reflect the in vivo state, and for experimental reliability and reproducibility, careful attention to collection, processing and storage is essential. This is particularly true for the placenta, which is potentially subjected to stressful conditions during delivery, and sample collection may be delayed owing to routine postpartum inspection by clinical staff. In addition, standardisation of the collection procedure enables samples to be shared among research groups, allowing larger datasets to be established. Here, we provide an evidence-based and experts' review of the factors surrounding collection that may influence data obtained from the human placenta. We outline particular requirements for specific techniques, and propose a protocol for optimal sample collection. We recognise that the relevance of these factors, and of the sample types collected to a particular study will depend on the research questions being addressed. We therefore anticipate that researchers will select from the protocol to meet their needs and resources available. Wherever possible, we encourage researchers to extend their collection to include additional samples that can be shared on an international collaborative basis, with appropriate informed consent, to raise the quality, as well as quantity, of placental research.

Cancer clinical trials in the era of genomic signatures: biomedical innovation, clinical utility, and regulatory-scientific hybrids

The paper examines two large-scale, North American and European clinical trials designed to validate two commercially available genomic tumor signatures that predict a patient's risk of breast cancer recurrence and response to chemotherapy. The paper builds on empirical evidence from the two trials to explore the emergence of diverse regulatory-scientific hybrids; that is, the paper discusses configurations of genomic practice and bioclinical work that depend on linkages between technical, commercial, patient, clinical, and legal interests and institutions. The development of the genomic signatures for each trial--Oncotype DX and MammaPrint--has followed quite different routes. Oncotype began as a commercial platform: the company that produced it did not discover a signature but rather constructed it by asking users at every step what clinical question they wanted the signature to answer and what data would be credible in that regard. The test has been designed to minimally disrupt existing clinical workflows. MammaPrint, on the other hand, began as a breast cancer signature: the researchers who discovered it, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), established a company to commercialize it as a test after the fact. MammaPrint requires a change in pathologists' routines. Thus, while these two trials signify a new departure for clinical cancer trials on a number of levels--they both incorporate new models of interaction between biotech companies and public research, and they both aim to establish the clinical relevance of genomic markers--they also embody different socio-technical scripts: one attempts to accommodate established routines, while the other openly challenges prevailing evidential hierarchies and existing biomedical configurations.