Literature DB >> 20010899

Genomic markers for decision making: what is preventing us from using markers?

Vicky M Coyle1, Patrick G Johnston.   

Abstract

The advent of novel genomic technologies that enable the evaluation of genomic alterations on a genome-wide scale has significantly altered the field of genomic marker research in solid tumors. Researchers have moved away from the traditional model of identifying a particular genomic alteration and evaluating the association between this finding and a clinical outcome measure to a new approach involving the identification and measurement of multiple genomic markers simultaneously within clinical studies. This in turn has presented additional challenges in considering the use of genomic markers in oncology, such as clinical study design, reproducibility and interpretation and reporting of results. This Review will explore these challenges, focusing on microarray-based gene-expression profiling, and highlights some common failings in study design that have impacted on the use of putative genomic markers in the clinic. Despite these rapid technological advances there is still a paucity of genomic markers in routine clinical use at present. A rational and focused approach to the evaluation and validation of genomic markers is needed, whereby analytically validated markers are investigated in clinical studies that are adequately powered and have pre-defined patient populations and study endpoints. Furthermore, novel adaptive clinical trial designs, incorporating putative genomic markers into prospective clinical trials, will enable the evaluation of these markers in a rigorous and timely fashion. Such approaches have the potential to facilitate the implementation of such markers into routine clinical practice and consequently enable the rational and tailored use of cancer therapies for individual patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20010899     DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol        ISSN: 1759-4774            Impact factor:   66.675


  62 in total

1.  Transcriptional census of 36 microdissected colorectal cancers yields a gene signature to distinguish UICC II and III.

Authors:  Joern Groene; Ulrich Mansmann; Reinhard Meister; Eike Staub; Stefan Roepcke; Maya Heinze; Irina Klaman; Thomas Brümmendorf; Klaus Hermann; Christoph Loddenkemper; Christian Pilarsky; Benno Mann; Hans-Peter Adams; Heinz Johannes Buhr; André Rosenthal
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 2.  Reproducible and reliable microarray results through quality control: good laboratory proficiency and appropriate data analysis practices are essential.

Authors:  Leming Shi; Roger G Perkins; Hong Fang; Weida Tong
Journal:  Curr Opin Biotechnol       Date:  2007-12-26       Impact factor: 9.740

3.  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 4.  Challenges of microarray data and the evaluation of gene expression profile signatures.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Cancer Invest       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.176

5.  REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK).

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Douglas G Altman; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube; Massimo Gion; Gary M Clark
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2005-08

6.  Osteopontin identified as lead marker of colon cancer progression, using pooled sample expression profiling.

Authors:  Deepak Agrawal; Tingan Chen; Rosalyn Irby; John Quackenbush; Ann F Chambers; Marianna Szabo; Alan Cantor; Domenico Coppola; Timothy J Yeatman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-04-03       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Preliminary comparison of quantity, quality, and microarray performance of RNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, and unfixed frozen tissue samples.

Authors:  Marshall S Scicchitano; Deidre A Dalmas; Melissa A Bertiaux; Shawn M Anderson; Leah R Turner; Roberta A Thomas; Rossana Mirable; Rogely W Boyce
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2006-07-24       Impact factor: 2.479

Review 8.  RNA expression analysis from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues.

Authors:  Susan M Farragher; Austin Tanney; Richard D Kennedy; D Paul Harkin
Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 4.304

9.  A novel approach for reliable microarray analysis of microdissected tumor cells from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded colorectal cancer resection specimens.

Authors:  Silke Lassmann; Clemens Kreutz; Anja Schoepflin; Ulrich Hopt; Jens Timmer; Martin Werner
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Whole genome analysis for liver metastasis gene signatures in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Ki; Hei-Cheul Jeung; Chan Hee Park; Seung Hee Kang; Gui Youn Lee; Won Suk Lee; Nam Kyu Kim; Hyun Chul Chung; Sun Young Rha
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  5 in total

1.  Bridging the gap: moving predictive and prognostic assays from research to clinical use.

Authors:  P Michael Williams; Tracy G Lively; J Milburn Jessup; Barbara A Conley
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Miranta Antoniou; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Andrea L Jorgensen
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2017-01-25

Review 3.  Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Miranta Antoniou; Andrea L Jorgensen; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Clinical implementation of RNA signatures for pharmacogenomic decision-making.

Authors:  Weihua Tang; Zhiyuan Hu; Hind Muallem; Margaret L Gulley
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2011-09-08

5.  A multiplex two-color real-time PCR method for quality-controlled molecular diagnostic testing of FFPE samples.

Authors:  Jiyoun Yeo; Erin L Crawford; Thomas M Blomquist; Lauren M Stanoszek; Rachel E Dannemiller; Jill Zyrek; Luis E De Las Casas; Sadik A Khuder; James C Willey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.