Why Your New Cancer Biomarker May Never Work: Recurrent Patterns and Remarkable Diversity in Biomarker Failures.

Author's Affiliation: The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive, Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 9.28). 11/2012; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3232
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Less than 1% of published cancer biomarkers actually enter clinical practice. Although best practices for biomarker development are published, optimistic investigators may not appreciate the statistical near-certainty and diverse modes by which the other 99% (likely including your favorite new marker) do indeed fail. Here, patterns of failure were abstracted for classification from publications and an online database detailing marker failures. Failure patterns formed a hierarchical logical structure, or outline, of an emerging, deeply complex, and arguably fascinating science of biomarker failure. A new cancer biomarker under development is likely to have already encountered one or more of the following fatal features encountered by prior markers: lack of clinical significance, hidden structure in the source data, a technically inadequate assay, inappropriate statistical methods, unmanageable domination of the data by normal variation, implausibility, deficiencies in the studied population or in the investigator system, and its disproof or abandonment for cause by others. A greater recognition of the science of biomarker failure and its near-complete ubiquity is constructive and celebrates a seemingly perpetual richness of biologic, technical, and philosophical complexity, the full appreciation of which could improve the management of scarce research resources. Cancer Res; 72(23); 1-5. ©2012 AACR.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomarkers are vital to detect diseases in various clinical stages. A variety of cancer serum biomarkers are already known, while for more accurate cancer-type detection, there required more rigorous evaluation manners, especially computational evaluation measures, for biomarkers. In this review, we first show three typical pitfalls in finding biomarkers and their examples, after briefly presenting standard five clinical biomarker screening phases by National Cancer Institute. We then introduce current computational biomarker evaluation measures, including current, standard methods with their intrinsic features. We further show an up-to-date list of existing cancer serum biomarkers, pointing out several issues, being caused by the limitations of current biomarker evaluation approaches. Finally we discuss the current attempts to develop new, statistically robust, computational serum-based biomarker measures in terms of specificity to each of various cancer types.
    Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 10/2014; · 4.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Head and neck cancer (HNC) broadly includes carcinomas arising from the mucosal epithelia of the head and neck region as well as various cell types of salivary glands and the thyroid. As reflected by the multiple sites and histologies of HNC, the molecular characteristics and clinical outcomes of this disease vary widely. In this Review, we focus on established and emerging biomarkers that are most relevant to nasopharyngeal carcinoma and head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC), which includes primary sites in the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx. Applications and limitations of currently established biomarkers are discussed along with examples of successful biomarker development. For emerging biomarkers, preclinical or retrospective data are also described in the context of recently completed comprehensive molecular analyses of HNSCC, which provide a broad genetic landscape and molecular classification beyond histology and clinical characteristics. We will highlight the ongoing effort that will see a shift from prognostic to predictive biomarker development in HNC with the goal of delivering individualized cancer therapy.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 11/2014; · 15.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to develop placental growth factor as a predictive pharmacodynamic biomarker for motesanib efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e108048. · 3.53 Impact Factor