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
    • "There is a growing body of evidence that inadequate biospecimen quality contributes to the irreproducibility of medical research results , and misinterpretation of artefacts as biomarkers [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This lack of quality may ultimately impact on the translation of research findings into clinical practice, and lead to incorrect diagnoses and/or treatments for patients [6] [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Inadequate research biospecimen quality may adversely impact research translation to clinical practice. Despite the development and endorsement of external quality assurance (QA) programs and biospecimen quality reporting tools, there has been little examination of relevant biobank practices. Design and methods: An online survey was designed to describe the use and communication of QA and quality control (QC) measures within an Australian cancer biobank cohort (n=21), classified according to access policy. Survey questions examined the development and maintenance of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), other specific QA and biospecimen QC activities, and communication of biospecimen QC results to researchers. Results: Over three quarters of biobanks utilised regularly-reviewed, best-practice-referenced SOPs, and most biobanks undertook at least one QC activity. Whereas all open-access biobanks (n=11) utilised SOPs and undertook at least one QC activity, these practices were significantly less frequent in restricted-access biobanks (n=10). There were overall low rates of recording the SPREC code, with increased but incomplete recording of Tier 1 BRISQ data. Open-access biobanks were significantly more likely to provide biospecimen QC results to researchers, and to report receiving requests for QC results or additional sample data. Conclusions: Improved resourcing and education may be required to boost current levels of QA and QC activities and reporting by cancer biobanks.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Clinical biochemistry
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
  • 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). "

    Full-text · Article · Sep 2014 · Neural Regeneration Research
Show more