Literature DB >> 16794234

Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer.

N Lynn Henry1, Daniel F Hayes.   

Abstract

Although breast cancer incidence continues to increase, mortality has been decreasing, principally as a result of earlier detection and improvements in adjuvant systemic therapy. Nonetheless, because antineo-plastic agents are associated with substantial morbidity and occasional mortality, efforts to individualize treatment strategies are desirable. In addition to classic histopathologic diagnosis, molecular and cellular tumor markers may help in establishing prognosis or prediction of benefit. Recommendations for routine use of tumor markers in breast cancer have been conservative. Although several studies have been reported, few are of sufficiently high level of evidence to permit solid conclusions. Three key issues in tumor marker evaluation are utility, magnitude, and reliability. Poorly conceived study designs cloud the issue of how the marker might be used. Reliance on p-values rather than the size of the differences in outcome between patients who are positive and those who are negative for the factor obscures the importance. Technical issues result in poor reproducibility and interpretability of assays. Analytical issues lead to poorly defined cutoff values for marker levels. Poor patient selection leads to difficulty interpreting results because of confounders such as differences in treatment regimens. This review focuses on these issues, with an emphasis on currently accepted tumor markers. Finally, new tumor marker reporting recommendations are discussed, the adoption of which may lead to improved design and publication of tumor marker studies in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16794234     DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-6-541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  36 in total

1.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Richard M Simon; Soonmyung Paik; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  CYP2D6 genotype is not associated with survival in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen: results from a population-based study.

Authors:  D L Hertz; K M Kidwell; S G Hilsenbeck; S Oesterreich; C K Osborne; S Philips; C Chenault; R J Hartmaier; T C Skaar; M J Sikora; J M Rae
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  The Challenges of Validating in Precision Medicine: The Case of Excision Repair Cross-Complement Group 1 Diagnostic Testing.

Authors:  Brianna Barsanti-Innes; Spencer Phillips Hey; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2016-10-24

5.  Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 6.  Biomarker validation and testing.

Authors:  Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 6.603

7.  Absence of multiple atypical chemokine binders (ACBs) and the presence of VEGF and MMP-9 predict axillary lymph node metastasis in early breast carcinomas.

Authors:  Xiao-Hua Zeng; Zhou-Luo Ou; Ke-Da Yu; Lan-Yun Feng; Wen-Jing Yin; Jing Li; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Zhi-Min Shao
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.064

8.  Elevated plasma osteopontin as marker for distant metastases and poor survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Azizbek Ramankulov; Michael Lein; Glen Kristiansen; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Stefan A Loening; Klaus Jung
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 9.  Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting.

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The gene expression signature of genomic instability in breast cancer is an independent predictor of clinical outcome.

Authors:  Jens K Habermann; Jana Doering; Sampsa Hautaniemi; Uwe J Roblick; Nana K Bündgen; Daniel Nicorici; Ulrike Kronenwett; Shruti Rathnagiriswaran; Rama K R Mettu; Yan Ma; Stefan Krüger; Hans-Peter Bruch; Gert Auer; Nancy L Guo; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.