Literature DB >> 20054437

Methods for Assessing Improvement in Specificity when a Biomarker is Combined with a Standard Screening Test.

Pamela A Shaw1, Margaret S Pepe, Todd A Alonzo, Ruth Etzioni.   

Abstract

Biomarkers that can be used in combination with established screening tests to reduce false positive rates are in considerable demand. In this article, we present methods for evaluating the diagnostic performance of combination tests that require positivity on a biomarker test in addition to a standard screening test. These methods rely on relative true and false positive rates to measure the loss in sensitivity and gain in specificity associated with the combination relative to the standard test. Inference about the relative rates follows from noting their interpretation as conditional probabilities. These methods are extended to evaluate combinations with continuous biomarker tests by introducing a new statistical entity, the relative receiver operating characteristic (rROC) curve. The rROC curve plots the relative true positive rate versus the relative false positive rate as the biomarker threshold for positivity varies. Inference can be made by applying existing ROC methodology. We illustrate the methods with two examples: a breast cancer biomarker study proposed by the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN) and a prostate cancer case-control study examining the ability of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to improve the specificity of the standard PSA test.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20054437      PMCID: PMC2802069          DOI: 10.1198/sbr.2009.0002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res        ISSN: 1946-6315            Impact factor:   1.452


  17 in total

Review 1.  Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art.

Authors:  J A Hanley
Journal:  Crit Rev Diagn Imaging       Date:  1989

2.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data.

Authors:  C E Metz; B A Herman; J H Shen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  The economic impact of false-positive cancer screens.

Authors:  Jennifer Elston Lafata; Janine Simpkins; Lois Lamerato; Laila Poisson; George Divine; Christine Cole Johnson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  W J Catalona; A W Partin; K M Slawin; M K Brawer; R C Flanigan; A Patel; J P Richie; J B deKernion; P C Walsh; P T Scardino; P H Lange; E N Subong; R E Parson; G H Gasior; K G Loveland; P C Southwick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  A Schatzkin; R J Connor; P R Taylor; B Bunnag
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Comparison of the accuracy of two tests with a confirmatory procedure limited to positive results.

Authors:  H Cheng; M Macaluso
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  A randomized trial of aspirin and beta-carotene among U.S. physicians.

Authors:  C H Hennekens; K Eberlein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Prostate cancer detection in the prostate specific antigen range of 2.0 to 3.9 ng/ml: value of percent free prostate specific antigen on tumor detection and tumor aggressiveness.

Authors:  Rene Raaijmakers; Bert G Blijenberg; Judith A Finlay; Harry G Rittenhouse; Mark F Wildhagen; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Evaluation of percentage of free serum prostate-specific antigen to improve specificity of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  W J Catalona; D S Smith; R L Wolfert; T J Wang; H G Rittenhouse; T L Ratliff; R B Nadler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-10-18       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  10 in total

1.  Using Relative Statistics and Approximate Disease Prevalence to Compare Screening Tests.

Authors:  Frank Samuelson; Craig Abbey
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 0.968

Review 2.  Usage of cancer associated autoantibodies in the detection of disease.

Authors:  Steven P Dudas; Madhumita Chatterjee; Michael A Tainsky
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.388

3.  Pseudomonas aeruginosa serology and risk for re-isolation in the EPIC trial.

Authors:  Michael Anstead; Sonya L Heltshe; Umer Khan; Joseph T Barbieri; Markus Langkamp; Gerd Döring; Shimoni Dharia; Ronald L Gibson; Miriam M Treggiari; James Lymp; Margaret Rosenfeld; Bonnie Ramsey
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 4.  Beyond PSA: the next generation of prostate cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  John R Prensner; Mark A Rubin; John T Wei; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  Analysis of Viral Diversity in Relation to the Recency of HIV-1C Infection in Botswana.

Authors:  Sikhulile Moyo; Alain Vandormael; Eduan Wilkinson; Susan Engelbrecht; Simani Gaseitsiwe; Kenanao P Kotokwe; Rosemary Musonda; Frank Tanser; Max Essex; Vladimir Novitsky; Tulio de Oliveira
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  More Accurate Oral Cancer Screening with Fewer Salivary Biomarkers.

Authors:  James Michael Menke; Md Shahidul Ahsan; Suan Phaik Khoo
Journal:  Biomark Cancer       Date:  2017-10-17

7.  Serum microRNA-135a as a diagnostic biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Yuanwu Zou; Chengbao Jing; Li Liu; Ting Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Plasma miR-1247-5p, miR-301b-3p and miR-105-5p as potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Xiaohan Dong; Minghui Chang; Xingguo Song; Shanshan Ding; Li Xie; Xianrang Song
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Development of a Risk Score to Predict Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Authors:  Mounika Polavarapu; Hillary Klonoff-Cohen; Divya Joshi; Praveen Kumar; Ruopeng An; Karin Rosenblatt
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 4.614

10.  Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.