Sources of Bias in Specimens for Research About Molecular Markers for Cancer

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 02/2010; 28(4):698-704. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6065
Source: PubMed


Claims about the diagnostic or prognostic accuracy of markers often prove disappointing when "discrimination" found between cancers versus normals is due to bias, a systematic difference between compared groups. This article describes a framework to help simplify and organize current problems in marker research by focusing on the role of specimens as a source of bias in observational research and using that focus to address problems and improve reliability. The central idea is that the "fundamental comparison" in research about markers (ie, the comparison done to assess whether a marker discriminates) involves two distinct processes that are "connected" by specimens. If subject selection (first process) creates baseline inequality between groups being compared, then laboratory analysis of specimens (second process) may erroneously find positive results. Although both processes are important, subject selection more fundamentally influences the quality of marker research, because it can hardwire bias into all comparisons in a way that cannot be corrected by any refinement in laboratory analysis. An appreciation of the separateness of these two processes-and placing investigators with appropriate expertise in charge of each-may increase the reliability of research about cancer biomarkers.

Download full-text


Available from: Margaret Lee Gourlay, Jul 22, 2014
  • Source
    • "While the potential utility of “companion” diagnostics opens the door to optimal patient selection,7 rapid development is hindered by intratumoral heterogeneity, low frequency of responsible driver mutations, and the variety of tests available to assess each potential target (analyte).8 The limited amount of tissue available for diagnostic use and the high costs of individual tests mean that sequential individual tests are not likely to be feasible and that multiplexed assays or next-generation DNA sequencing may be required. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On February 2, 2012, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a 2-day workshop with the NCI Thoracic Malignancies Steering Committee and the Food and Drug Administration to bring together leading academicians, clinicians, industry and government representatives to identify challenges and potential solutions in the clinical development of novel targeted therapies for lung cancer. Measures of success are rapidly evolving from a scientific and regulatory perspective and the objectives of this workshop were to achieve initial consensus on a high priority biomarker-driven clinical trial designed to rapidly assess the activity of targeted agents in molecularly defined lung cancer subsets and to facilitate generation of data leading to approval of these new therapies. Additionally, the meeting focused on identification of the barriers to conduct such a trial and the development of strategies to overcome those barriers. The "Lung Master Protocols" recently launched by NCI were the direct outcome of this workshop.
    Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 10/2014; 9(10):1443-8. DOI:10.1097/JTO.0000000000000314 · 5.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "While it is usually difficult to prove in individual cases, investigator bias, including inadvertent and unrecognized bias (Ransohoff et al., 2010), is widely believed to contribute to the reproducibility problem. To overcome investigator bias, leaders in neuroscience recently argued for more rigorous standards in study design and reporting (Landis et al., 2012). "

    Neural Regeneration Research 09/2014; 9(1):6-7. DOI:10.4103/1673-5374.125322 · 0.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "an antibody, which are useful as the capture and detection reagents in proteomics (Ransohoff and Gourlay, 2010). As an alternative, affinity reagents, e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer is the leading cause of the death, accounts for about 13% of all annual deaths worldwide. Many different fields of science are collaborating together studying cancer to improve our knowledge of this lethal disease, and find better solutions for diagnosis and treatment. Proteomics is one of the most recent and rapidly growing areas in molecular biology that helps understanding cancer from an omics data analysis point of view. The human proteome project was officially initiated in 2008. Proteomics enables the scientists to interrogate a variety of biospecimens for their protein contents and measure the concentrations of these proteins. Current necessary equipment and technologies for cancer proteomics are mass spectrometry, protein microarrays, nanotechnology and bioinformatics. In this paper, we provide a brief review on proteomics and its application in cancer research. After a brief introduction including its definition, we summarize the history of major previous work conducted by researchers, followed by an overview on the role of proteomics in cancer studies. We also provide a list of different utilities in cancer proteomics and investigate their advantages and shortcomings from theoretical and practical angles. Finally, we explore some of the main challenges and conclude the paper with future directions in this field.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 03/2014; 15(6):2433-8. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2433 · 2.51 Impact Factor
Show more