Literature DB >> 15283883

The International Bladder Cancer Bank: proposal for a new study concept.

Peter J Goebell1, Susan Groshen, Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger, Richard Sylvester, Manolis Kogevinas, Núria Malats, Guido Sauter, H Barton Grossman, Fred Waldman, Richard J Cote.   

Abstract

At present, results of marker studies are often inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Recognized problems include multiple different methods of performing the assays, different subsets of patients and different endpoints, leading to incompatible datasets. Although there has been discussion of establishing general methodological principles and guidelines (analogous to those for clinical trials) for design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of marker studies, these have not been widely implemented. There are no well-recognized prototypes or examples that the urologic researcher can use to model future marker studies. We will discuss our plans to establish a multi-institutional bladder cancer data base and virtual tumor bank as a resource for participating institutions to evaluate the biological and prognostic significance of potential markers for bladder cancer. Samples will be identified and stored at each participating institution and will be available for analysis. A standard, minimal set of patient and pathologic information will be collected. The use of common software, as part of this proposal will facilitate the data transfer of updated patient information to a central database. All contributing centers will have access to summarized information, also to simplify the process of finding collaborating partners. Prospectively collected, consistent datasets with available long-term follow-up, should provide information sooner than with a conventional prospective study. Furthermore, the quality of these data and samples may be superior to that of retrospectively collected data and samples. The proposed International Bladder Cancer Bank of specimens and data will be an effective tool during all phases of marker development. Copyright 2004 Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15283883     DOI: 10.1016/S1078-1439(03)00175-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  6 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers.

Authors:  Peter J Goebell; Ashish M Kamat; Richard J Sylvester; Peter Black; Michael Droller; Guilherme Godoy; M'Liss A Hudson; Kerstin Junker; Wassim Kassouf; Margaret A Knowles; Wolfgang A Schulz; Roland Seiler; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 2.  Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Yair Lotan; Andrew Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Peter J Goebell; Nuria Malats
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Lack of association of microvessel density with prognosis of renal cell carcinoma: evidence from meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bing Zhang; Hong Ji; Dongliang Yan; Shaoqing Liu; Benkang Shi
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2013-11-23

Review 4.  Guidelines for development of diagnostic markers in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Peter J Goebell; Susan L Groshen; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Meta-analysis of a 10-plex urine-based biomarker assay for the detection of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Norihiko Masuda; Osamu Ogawa; Meyeon Park; Alvin Y Liu; Steve Goodison; Yunfeng Dai; Landon Kozai; Hideki Furuya; Yair Lotan; Charles J Rosser; Takashi Kobayashi
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-01-03

Review 6.  Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond.

Authors:  R D Riley; W Sauerbrei; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.