ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2012
Feasibility of linking population-based cancer registries and cancer center biorepositories.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of the CIBMTR biorepository and registry in precision transplantation research.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Review
- Optimizing data linkage for maximizing the potential of Luxembourg's national cancer registry: a comprehensive scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- The Belgian Virtual Tumorbank: A Tool for Translational Cancer Research.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBiospecimen-based research offers tremendous promise as a way to increase understanding of the molecular epidemiology of cancers. Population-based cancer registries can augment this research by providing more clinical detail and long-term follow-up information than is typically available from biospecimen annotations. In order to demonstrate the feasibility of this concept, we performed a pilot linkage between the California Cancer Registry (CCR) and the University of California, Davis Cancer Center Biorepository (UCD CCB) databases to determine if we could identify patients with records in both databases.
methodsWe performed a probabilistic data linkage between 2180 UCD CCB biospecimen records collected during the years 2005-2009 and all CCR records for cancers diagnosed from 1988-2009 based on standard data linkage procedures.
resultsThe 1040 UCD records with a unique medical record number, tissue site, and pathology date were linked to 3.3 million CCR records. Of these, 844 (81.2%) were identified in both databases. Overall, record matches were highest (100%) for cancers of the cervix and testis/other male genital system organs. For the most common cancers, matches were highest for cancers of the lung and respiratory system (93%), breast (91.7%), and colon and rectum (89.5%), and lower for prostate (72.9%).
conclusionsThis pilot linkage demonstrated that information on existing biospecimens from a cancer center biorepository can be linked successfully to cancer registry data. Linkages between existing biorepositories and cancer registries can foster productive collaborations and provide a foundation for virtual biorepository networks to support population-based biospecimen research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.