Statistical challenges in the development and evaluation of marker-based clinical tests

BMC Medicine

Lisa M McShane¹ 

[1] Biometric Research Branch and Cancer Diagnosis Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Boulevard, EPN 8126, Bethesda, MD 20892-7434, USA

关键词: translational research;    clinical test;    treatment effect modifier;    predictive;    prognostic;    biostatistics;    biomarker;    Marker;   

Others  :  1126131
DOI  :  10.1186/1741-7015-10-52

 received in 2012-02-08, accepted in 2012-05-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Exciting new technologies for assessing markers in human specimens are now available to evaluate unprecedented types and numbers of variations in DNA, RNA, proteins, or biological structures such as chromosomes. These markers, whether viewed individually, or collectively as a 'signature', have the potential to be useful for disease risk assessment, screening, early detection, prognosis, therapy selection, and monitoring for therapy effectiveness or disease recurrence. Successful translation from basic research findings to clinically useful test requires basic, translational, and regulatory sciences and a collaborative effort among individuals with varied types of expertise including laboratory scientists, technology developers, clinicians, statisticians, and bioinformaticians. The focus of this commentary is the many statistical challenges in translational marker research, specifically in the development and validation of marker-based tests that have clinical utility for therapeutic decision-making.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 McShane; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schilsky RS: Personalizing cancer care: American Society of Clinical Oncology presidential address 2009. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:3725-3730.
• [2]Gardiner SJ, Begg EJ: Pharmacogenetics, drug-metabolizing enzymes, and clinical practice. Pharmacol Rev 2006, 58:521-590.
• [3]Clark GM, McShane LM: Biostatistical considerations in development of biomarker-based tests to guide treatment decisions. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2011, 3:549-560.
• [4]Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC Jr: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:5287-5312.
• [5]Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JPA: Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer 2007, 43:2559-2579.
• [6]Simon R, Altman DG: Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 1994, 69:979-985.
• [7]Simon R: Development and validation of therapeutically relevant multi-gene biomarker classifiers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:866-867.
• [8]Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1446-1452.
• [9]Ioannidis JPA: Limits to forecasting in personalized medicine: An overview. Int J Forecast 2009, 25:773-783.
• [10]Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL: Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:152-160.
• [11]Andre F, McShane LM, Michiels S, Ransohoff DF, Altman DG, Reis-Filho JS, Hayes DF, Pusztai L: Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2011, 8:171-176.
• [12]McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, Statistics Subcommittee of the NCIC-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics: REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:1180-1184.
• [13]Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE: Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Medicine 2012, 10:51. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, Hayes DF, Hainaut P, Kim P, Mansfield EA, Potapova O, Riegman P, Rubinstein Y, Seijo E, Somiari S, Watson P, Weier H-U, Zhu C, Vaught J: Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol 2011, 119:92-101.