-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The REMARK (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies) guideline includes a checklist which aims to improve the reporting of these types of studies. Here, we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report. Each checklist item of the REMARK guideline is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general.
PLoS Medicine 05/2012; 9(5):e1001216. · 16.27 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A workshop sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the US Food and Drug Administration addressed past lessons learned and ongoing challenges faced in biomarker development and drug and biomarker codevelopment. Participants agreed that critical decision points in the product life cycle depend on the level of understanding of the biology of the target and its interaction with the drug, the preanalytical and analytical factors affecting biomarker assay performance, and the clinical disease process. The more known about the biology and the greater the strength of association between an analytical signal and clinical result, the more efficient and less risky the development process will be. Rapid entry into clinical practice will only be achieved by using a rigorous scientific approach, including careful specimen collection and standardized and quality-controlled data collection. Early interaction with appropriate regulatory bodies will ensure studies are appropriately designed and biomarker test performance is well characterized.
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 11/2009; 101(21):1453-63. · 14.07 Impact Factor
-
Sheila E Taube
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Few apparently promising oncology biomarkers actually make their way into routine clinical use. There are many reasons for this lack of success, and the complexity of cancer biology is only one of the reasons. Challenges involved in evaluating the analytical and the clinical performance of cancer biomarkers account for the lack of successful translation to the clinic. The lack of clear definition of the clinical need often results in tests that may perform reproducibly but are not used because they do not help with important patient care decisions. The National Cancer Institute Cancer Diagnosis Program launched the Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests in an effort to move biomarkers more efficiently and effectively into the clinic. A development pathway is proposed that defines the steps required for evaluation of a biomarker assay's analytical and clinical performance. Several pilot projects are ongoing to test the process, and these are described.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 10/2009; 1180:111-8. · 3.15 Impact Factor
-
Antonio C Wolff,
M Elizabeth H Hammond,
Jared N Schwartz,
Karen L Hagerty,
D Craig Allred,
Richard J Cote,
Mitchell Dowsett,
Patrick L Fitzgibbons,
Wedad M Hanna,
Amy Langer, [......],
Edith A Perez,
Michael F Press,
Anthony Rhodes,
Catharine Sturgeon, Sheila E Taube,
Raymond Tubbs,
Gail H Vance,
Marc van de Vijver,
Thomas M Wheeler,
Daniel F Hayes
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2(HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations.
Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry(IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy.
The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3 + (uniform, intense membrane staining of 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1 +, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 02/2007; 131(1):18-43. · 2.58 Impact Factor
-
Journal of Clinical Oncology 01/2006; 23(36):9067-72. · 18.37 Impact Factor
-
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 06/2005; 5(3):271-3. · 4.86 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A new diagnostic tool must pass three major tests before it is adopted for routine clinical use. First, the tool must be robust and reproducible; second, the clinical value of the tool must be proven, i.e. the tool should reliably trigger a clinical decision that results in patient benefit; and, third, the clinical community has to be convinced of the need for this tool and the benefits it affords. Another factor that can influence the adoption of new tools relates to the cost and the vagaries of insurance reimbursement. The Cancer Diagnosis Program (CDP) of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests (PACCT) in 2000 to develop a process for moving the results of new technologies and new understanding of cancer biology more efficiently and effectively into clinical practice. PACCT has developed an algorithm that incorporates the iterative nature of assay development into an evaluation process that includes developers and end users. The effective introduction of new tests into clinical practice has been hampered by a series of common problems that are best described using examples of successes and failures. The successful application of the PACCT algorithm is described in the discussion of the recent development of the OncotypeDX assay and plan for a prospective trial of this assay by the NCI-supported Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. The assay uses reverse transcription (RT)-PCR evaluation of a set of 16 genes that were shown to strongly associate with the risk of recurrence of breast cancer in women who presented with early stage disease (hormone responsive, and no involvement of the auxiliary lymph nodes). The test is highly reproducible. It provides information to aid the physician and patient in making important clinical decisions, including the aggressiveness of the therapy that should be recommended. A trial is planned to test whether OncotypeDX can be used as a standalone trigger for specific treatment decisions. The problems that have been encountered and have delayed the development of other diagnostic tools are exemplified in the development of tests for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) overexpression, for predictors of response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, and for the detection of residual disease following chemotherapy.
American Journal of PharmacoGenomics 02/2005; 5(6):357-64.
-
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 08/2004; 4(4):431-3. · 4.86 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The elucidation of the human genome and advances in knowledge about molecular abnormalities, signaling pathways, influence of the local tissue milieu and the relevance of genetic polymorphisms offer hope of designing more effective, individualized cancer treatment plans. Although the scientific and medical literature is replete with reports of putative prognostic or predictive markers for cancer, few new diagnostics have been incorporated into routine clinical practice. Criteria are needed to a) identify markers that have the promise to be clinically useful; b) assess the best methodology for clinical evaluation of the markers in question and c) confirm or validate that using the marker adds useful information compared to using standard prognostic factors alone. This review presents a methodology for the clinical evaluation of putative prognostic and predictive markers in cancer, with considerations of pitfalls in the early evaluation, rationale for development and optimization of assay methodology, and examples of possible clinical trials for assessing the clinical utility of putative markers.
Disease markers 02/2004; 20(2):35-43. · 1.64 Impact Factor
-
Seminars in Oncology 07/2002; 29(3):211-2. · 3.50 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are few tumor markers that are clinically useful in predicting therapeutic responses or patient outcomes despite nearly 20 years of advances in molecular biology. We discuss a variety of issues and barriers that have affected movement of clinical tests from research into clinical practice. Studies of new markers frequently lack clear hypotheses and are generally underpowered to reach statistically valid conclusions. Relevant clinical endpoints may not be possible to evaluate, often leading to suboptimal study designs. Major stumbling blocks exist because studies are rarely comparable. This makes it difficult to determine why results vary from study to study. It also prevents pooling of small datasets for analysis. We propose a tumor marker development pathway that we think will be more efficient and effective. The pathway depends on developing statistically valid study designs, focusing on assay refinement and standardization early in the process, including assay details in publications, and providing data in a format that allows comparison with other studies. The process described should be applicable to development of new technologies that include analysis and interpretation of large, complex datasets. The proposed marker development pathway will require thoughtful refinement and expansion, but it should begin a productive dialog.
Seminars in Oncology 07/2002; 29(3):213-21. · 3.50 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often, initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute–European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.
