OBJECTIVE: To critically review and illustrate current methodological and statistical considerations for bladder cancer biomarker discovery and evaluation. METHODS: Original, review, and methodological articles, and editorials were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Biomarkers may be useful at multiple stages of bladder cancer management: early detection, diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and treatment; however, few novel biomarkers are currently used in clinical practice. The reasons for this disjunction are many and reflect the long and difficult pathway from candidate biomarker discovery to clinical assay, and the lack of coherent and comprehensive processes (pipelines) for biomarker development. Conceptually, the development of new biomarkers should be a process that is similar to therapeutic drug evaluation-a highly regulated process with carefully regulated phases from discovery to human applications. In a further effort to address the pervasive problem of inadequacies in the design, analysis, and reporting of biomarker prognostic studies, a set of reporting recommendations are discussed. For example, biomarkers should provide unique information that adds to known clinical and pathologic information. Conventional multivariable analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate improved prediction of outcomes. Predictive models, including or excluding any new putative biomarker, need to show clinically significant improvement of performance in order to claim any real benefit. Towards this end, proper model building, avoidance of overfitting, and external validation are crucial. In addition, it is important to choose appropriate performance measures dependent on outcome and prediction type and to avoid the use of cutpoints. Biomarkers providing a continuous score provide potentially more useful information than cutpoints since risk fits a continuum model. Combination of complementary and independent biomarkers is likely to better capture the biological potential of a tumor than any single biomarker. Finally, methods that incorporate clinical consequences such as decision curve analysis are crucial to the evaluation of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Attention to sound design and statistical practice should be delivered as early as possible and will help maximize the promise of biomarkers for patient care. Studies should include a measure of predictive accuracy and clinical decision-analysis. External validation using data from an independent cohort provides the strongest evidence that a model is valid. There is a need for adequately assessed clinical biomarkers in bladder cancer. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To critically review and illustrate current methodological and statistical considerations for bladder cancer biomarker discovery and evaluation. METHODS: Original, review, and methodological articles, and editorials were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Biomarkers may be useful at multiple stages of bladder cancer management: early detection, diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and treatment; however, few novel biomarkers are currently used in clinical practice. The reasons for this disjunction are many and reflect the long and difficult pathway from candidate biomarker discovery to clinical assay, and the lack of coherent and comprehensive processes (pipelines) for biomarker development. Conceptually, the development of new biomarkers should be a process that is similar to therapeutic drug evaluation-a highly regulated process with carefully regulated phases from discovery to human applications. In a further effort to address the pervasive problem of inadequacies in the design, analysis, and reporting of biomarker prognostic studies, a set of reporting recommendations are discussed. For example, biomarkers should provide unique information that adds to known clinical and pathologic information. Conventional multivariable analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate improved prediction of outcomes. Predictive models, including or excluding any new putative biomarker, need to show clinically significant improvement of performance in order to claim any real benefit. Towards this end, proper model building, avoidance of overfitting, and external validation are crucial. In addition, it is important to choose appropriate performance measures dependent on outcome and prediction type and to avoid the use of cutpoints. Biomarkers providing a continuous score provide potentially more useful information than cutpoints since risk fits a continuum model. Combination of complementary and independent biomarkers is likely to better capture the biological potential of a tumor than any single biomarker. Finally, methods that incorporate clinical consequences such as decision curve analysis are crucial to the evaluation of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Attention to sound design and statistical practice should be delivered as early as possible and will help maximize the promise of biomarkers for patient care. Studies should include a measure of predictive accuracy and clinical decision-analysis. External validation using data from an independent cohort provides the strongest evidence that a model is valid. There is a need for adequately assessed clinical biomarkers in bladder cancer. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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: Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ganesh S Palapattu; Paul Perrotte; Yair Lotan; Craig G Rogers; Gilad E Amiel; Amnon Vazina; Amit Gupta; Patrick J Bastian; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Mark Schoenberg; Seth P Lerner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Phillip L Ross; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Ofer Yossepowitch; Ilias Cagiannos; Pramod C Sogani; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Semin Urol Oncol Date: 2002-05
Authors: Jose A Karam; Yair Lotan; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Raheela Ashfaq; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Claus G Roehrborn; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Jose A Karam; Jochen Walz; Claus G Roehrborn; Francesco Montorsi; Vitaly Margulis; Fred Saad; Kevin M Slawin; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael Rink; Eugene K Cha; David Green; Jens Hansen; Brian D Robinson; Yair Lotan; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Felix K Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Margit Fisch; Douglas S Scherr; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Michael Rink; Daniel Sjoberg; Evi Comploj; Vitaly Margulis; Evanguelos Xylinas; Richard K Lee; Jens Hansen; Eugene K Cha; Jay D Raman; Mesut Remzi; Karim Bensalah; Giacomo Novara; Surena F Matin; Felix K Chun; Eiji Kikuchi; Wassim Kassouf; Juan I Martinez-Salamanca; Yair Lotan; Christian Seitz; Armin Pycha; Richard Zigeuner; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Douglas S Scherr; Andrew J Vickers; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Steven Christopher Smith; Alexander Spyridon Baras; Garrett Dancik; Yuanbin Ru; Kuan-Fu Ding; Christopher A Moskaluk; Yves Fradet; Jan Lehmann; Michael Stöckle; Arndt Hartmann; Jae K Lee; Dan Theodorescu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nagireddy Putluri; Ali Shojaie; Vihas T Vasu; Shaiju K Vareed; Srilatha Nalluri; Vasanta Putluri; Gagan Singh Thangjam; Katrin Panzitt; Christopher T Tallman; Charles Butler; Theodore R Sana; Steven M Fischer; Gabriel Sica; Daniel J Brat; Huidong Shi; Ganesh S Palapattu; Yair Lotan; Alon Z Weizer; Martha K Terris; Shahrokh F Shariat; George Michailidis; Arun Sreekumar Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 12.701