Abstract B6: Region Five GMaP/BMaP Network: Preliminary findings from the comprehensive needs assessment biospecimen facility survey
Authors: Simon Melissa A. , Schink Julian C. , de la Riva Erika E. , Fleisher Linda , Norbeck Carrie , Kandadai Venk , Davis Stacy N. , Bergan Raymond , Beck Robert , Louden Delroy M. 
Published: June 2012

Abstract
Objective: The Region Five GMaP/BMaP Network is a regional partnership representing 18 NCI funded institutions charged with the implementation of a comprehensive needs assessment (CNAT). This presentation focuses on preliminary findings from the Biospecimen Facility Survey.
Methods: The CNAT consisted of a mixed methods approach utilizing four instruments: A principal Investigator Survey and PI Interview and a Biospecimen Facility Survey and Interview. The surveys were conducted online during the months of March/ April 2011. Interviews will be conducted in July. The goal of the biospecimen facility survey which is the focus of this abstract is to assess minority biospecimen collection, biobanking practices, education, and outreach initiatives. The biospecimen survey consisted of 14 distinct questions, with affiliated subset questions, across five areas. These questions captured details from the institutions’ core facilities and inventory human specimens that were available for research. The survey was completed online by 10 biospecimen facility administrators.
Results: Preliminary findings consistently reported disparities in biospecimen collection among minority populations. Eight out of ten facilities reported the types of cancer and racial and ethnic groups from whom they collected specimens. Upon close review of the data, gaps in specimens collected for populations with a high burden of cancer were commonly identified. Seven facilities reported having collected specimen from 116,417 White patients vs. 12,592 Non-White (minority) patients’ and 1648 Hispanic patients’. Tissue (diseased and healthy) was most commonly collected and bodily fluids were least commonly collected.
While 40% of the biospecimen facilities have collaborated on biospecimen education efforts, we have learned that 60% of these facilities have collaborated on projects that collect specimens for the study of health disparities. The data mirrors similar findings from the PI survey; over half of our PIs are involved in biospecimen education and minority collection efforts.
In reference to bioinformatics and electronic data systems we found that 100% of the Region Five facilities currently use electronic annotation systems for biospecimen collection. However, there is a wide range of data systems/platforms used across the institutions which raise issues of compatibility. Along with this, we have found that 94% of specimens collected by our facilities have associated pathology data available.
Biospecimen facility administrators identified barriers which limit them from collaborating in collection programs. However, they also indicated a high desire to collaborate.
Conclusions: There is a need to focus on minority biospecimen collection efforts and address the gaps in how race and ethnicity and subtypes of biospecimens are collected across our institutions. Region Five is exploring ways to share instruments and methodologies used to collect race and ethnicity and develop strategies to standardize patient information collected. We anticipate implementing Cancer 101 and 102 education and training on research participation, biospecimen donation/biobanking and genetics across our institutions. In addition, there are opportunities for collaboration among principal investigators and biospecimen facilities around minority specimen collection efforts.
Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10 Suppl):B6.