Literature DB >> 19815849

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

Richard M Simon1, Soonmyung Paik, Daniel F Hayes.   

Abstract

The development of tumor biomarkers ready for clinical use is complex. We propose a refined system for biomarker study design, conduct, analysis, and evaluation that incorporates a hierarchal level of evidence scale for tumor marker studies, including those using archived specimens. Although fully prospective randomized clinical trials to evaluate the medical utility of a prognostic or predictive biomarker are the gold standard, such trials are costly, so we discuss more efficient indirect "prospective-retrospective" designs using archived specimens. In particular, we propose new guidelines that stipulate that 1) adequate amounts of archived tissue must be available from enough patients from a prospective trial (which for predictive factors should generally be a randomized design) for analyses to have adequate statistical power and for the patients included in the evaluation to be clearly representative of the patients in the trial; 2) the test should be analytically and preanalytically validated for use with archived tissue; 3) the plan for biomarker evaluation should be completely specified in writing before the performance of biomarker assays on archived tissue and should be focused on evaluation of a single completely defined classifier; and 4) the results from archived specimens should be validated using specimens from one or more similar, but separate, studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19815849      PMCID: PMC2782246          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  28 in total

1.  New guidelines for reporting of tumor marker studies in breast cancer research and treatment: REMARK.

Authors:  Daniel F Hayes; Stephen Ethier; Marc E Lippman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 2.  Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  N Lynn Henry; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2006-06

3.  Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish?

Authors:  David J Hunter; Muin J Khoury; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Targeting EGFR in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Wells A Messersmith; Dennis J Ahnen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases.

Authors:  R Simon; S-J Wang
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.550

Review 6.  The use of genomics in clinical trial design.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers.

Authors:  D F Hayes; R C Bast; C E Desch; H Fritsche; N E Kemeny; J M Jessup; G Y Locker; J S Macdonald; R G Mennel; L Norton; P Ravdin; S Taube; R J Winn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials.

Authors:  Daniel J Sargent; Barbara A Conley; Carmen Allegra; Laurence Collette
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer.

Authors:  Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  355 in total

Review 1.  Quantifying factors for the success of stratified medicine.

Authors:  Mark R Trusheim; Breon Burgess; Sean Xinghua Hu; Theresa Long; Steven D Averbuch; Aiden A Flynn; Alfons Lieftucht; Abhijit Mazumder; Judy Milloy; Peter M Shaw; David Swank; Jian Wang; Ernst R Berndt; Federico Goodsaid; Michael C Palmer
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 2.  Hurdles in anticancer drug development from a regulatory perspective.

Authors:  Bertil Jonsson; Jonas Bergh
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  Cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  N Lynn Henry; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 6.603

4.  The ups and downs of DNA repair biomarkers for PARP inhibitor therapies.

Authors:  Xiaozhe Wang; David T Weaver
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-03       Impact factor: 6.166

Review 5.  Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes.

Authors:  Robert A Beckman; Jason Clark; Cong Chen
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Adjuvant intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of colorectal cancer at risk for peritoneal carcinomatosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paul L Feingold; Nicholas D Klemen; Mei Li M Kwong; Barry Hashimoto; Udo Rudloff
Journal:  Int J Hyperthermia       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.914

Review 7.  A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality.

Authors:  Amanda Rush; Kevin Spring; Jennifer A Byrne
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2015-10-22

Review 8.  Biomarker enrichment strategies: matching trial design to biomarker credentials.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 66.675

9.  Cost effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in post-menopausal women with early-stage estrogen or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Malek B Hannouf; Bin Xie; Muriel Brackstone; Gregory S Zaric
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Multigene Assays for Classification, Prognosis, and Prediction in Breast Cancer: a Critical Review on the Background and Clinical Utility.

Authors:  P Sinn; S Aulmann; R Wirtz; S Schott; F Marmé; Z Varga; A Lebeau; H Kreipe; A Schneeweiss
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.