Literature DB >> 10066088

Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer.

D G Altman1, G H Lyman.   

Abstract

Many studies are carried out in an effort to find factors that help explain the large unexplained variation in prognosis of breast cancer patients. The principles of good study design and analysis are less well appreciated for prognostic factor studies than for therapeutic trials. The oncology literature is full of results from studies of varying quality, often with conflicting findings. As a consequence, despite the large number of studies, there is still uncertainty about the importance of most prognostic factors. Few recently proposed prognostic factors for breast cancer have become widely accepted. This paper reviews the important methodological issues underlying such research. These issues are illustrated with examples from published studies and recent reviews of papers published in cancer journals. Guidelines are proposed for conducting and evaluating prognostic factor studies which should improve the quality of research in this important area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10066088     DOI: 10.1023/a:1006193704132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  56 in total

1.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables.

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-07-28

Review 2.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer: current and new predictors of metastasis.

Authors:  D F Hayes; C Isaacs; V Stearns
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.673

3.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.775

4.  Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.069

5.  Editorial: gene expression profile assays as an aid in treatment decision making in early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Are Modic changes prognostic for recovery in a cohort of patients with non-specific low back pain?

Authors:  Anne Keller; Eleanor Boyle; Thomas A Skog; J David Cassidy; Erik Bautz-Holter
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Prognosis and the identification of workers risking disability: research issues and directions for future research.

Authors:  Steven J Linton; Doug Gross; Izabela Z Schultz; Chris Main; Pierre Côté; Glenn Pransky; William Johnson
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

8.  Functional capacity evaluation performance does not predict sustained return to work in claimants with chronic back pain.

Authors:  Douglas Paul Gross; Michele Crites Battié
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-09

9.  Patient-centered yes/no prognosis using learning machines.

Authors:  I R König; J D Malley; S Pajevic; C Weimar; H-C Diener; A Ziegler
Journal:  Int J Data Min Bioinform       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 0.667

Review 10.  Immunohistochemical prognostic markers in intracranial ependymomas: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Klara Kuncova; Ales Janda; Pavel Kasal; Josef Zamecnik
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 3.201

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.