OBJECTIVES: Advances in understanding cancer at the molecular level have identified numerous alterations associated with cancer development and progression. The efforts in evaluating these putative biomarkers in clinical studies of patients with cancer are increasing in order to improve the clinical management of the disease. However, despite numerous attempts, the results of such biomarker studies are frequently inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory. Aim of this work is to discuss some of the recognized problems which have impeded our understanding of the role of new markers and prevented the introduction of these markers into patient management. RESULTS: These Problems include standardization issues, selection of patient cohorts and endpoints and statistical considerations. In order to improve and standardize marker development a stepwise procedure in four phases, analogous to clinical trials is proposed. Furthermore, a common terminology, considerations on the population to study as well as general recommendations for planning and conducting the evaluation of markers will be presented. CONCLUSION: The implementation of this discussion may foster the integration of new tools and strategies screening, diagnosis and surveillance of patients with bladder cancer.
OBJECTIVES: Advances in understanding cancer at the molecular level have identified numerous alterations associated with cancer development and progression. The efforts in evaluating these putative biomarkers in clinical studies of patients with cancer are increasing in order to improve the clinical management of the disease. However, despite numerous attempts, the results of such biomarker studies are frequently inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory. Aim of this work is to discuss some of the recognized problems which have impeded our understanding of the role of new markers and prevented the introduction of these markers into patient management. RESULTS: These Problems include standardization issues, selection of patient cohorts and endpoints and statistical considerations. In order to improve and standardize marker development a stepwise procedure in four phases, analogous to clinical trials is proposed. Furthermore, a common terminology, considerations on the population to study as well as general recommendations for planning and conducting the evaluation of markers will be presented. CONCLUSION: The implementation of this discussion may foster the integration of new tools and strategies screening, diagnosis and surveillance of patients with bladder cancer.
Authors: M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tomonori Habuchi; Michael Marberger; Michael J Droller; George P Hemstreet; H Barton Grossman; Jack A Schalken; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; William M Murphy; Aldo V Bono; Peter Goebell; Robert H Getzenberg; Stefan H Hautmann; Edward Messing; Yves Fradet; Vinata B Lokeshwar Journal: Urology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar; Tomonori Habuchi; H Barton Grossman; William M Murphy; Stefan H Hautmann; George P Hemstreet; Aldo V Bono; Robert H Getzenberg; Peter Goebell; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Jack A Schalken; Yves Fradet; Michael Marberger; Edward Messing; Michael J Droller Journal: Urology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gary E Goodman; Mark D Thornquist; Cim Edelstein; Gilbert S Omenn Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Daniel Ajona; Cristina Razquin; Maria Dolores Pastor; Maria Jose Pajares; Javier Garcia; Felipe Cardenal; Michael Fleischhacker; Maria Dolores Lozano; Javier J Zulueta; Bernd Schmidt; Ernest Nadal; Luis Paz-Ares; Luis M Montuenga; Ruben Pio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240