Literature DB >> 20610277

Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer.

Shahrokh F Shariat1, Yair Lotan, Andrew Vickers, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger, Peter J Goebell, Nuria Malats.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20610277      PMCID: PMC3407571          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  72 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on bladder tumor markers.

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

3.  Precystectomy nomogram for prediction of advanced bladder cancer stage.

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

Review 4.  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 5.  Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer.

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

6.  Use of combined apoptosis biomarkers for prediction of bladder cancer recurrence and mortality after radical cystectomy.

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

Review 7.  Nomograms for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Vitaly Margulis; Yair Lotan; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 8.  Comparison of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Nazareno Suardi; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 9.  Challenges of cancer biomarker profiling.

Authors:  Karim Bensalah; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Improved prediction of disease relapse after radical prostatectomy through a panel of preoperative blood-based biomarkers.

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

View more
  33 in total

Review 1.  Biomolecular predictors of urothelial cancer behavior and treatment outcomes.

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

2.  From genomics to imaging-advances along the care continuum.

Authors:  Ahmed Haddad; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Neural correlates of chronic low back pain measured by arterial spin labeling.

Authors:  Ajay D Wasan; Marco L Loggia; Li Q Chen; Vitaly Napadow; Jian Kong; Randy L Gollub
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Risk of cancer-specific mortality following recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy.

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

Review 5.  DNA methylation-based biomarkers in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Raju Kandimalla; Angela A van Tilborg; Ellen C Zwarthoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  A 20-gene model for molecular nodal staging of bladder cancer: development and prospective assessment.

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

7.  Metabolomic profiling reveals potential markers and bioprocesses altered in bladder cancer progression.

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

8.  Personalized therapy for urothelial cancer: review of the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Guancial; Dipanjan Chowdhury; Jonathan E Rosenberg
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2011-04

9.  Accurate risk assessment of patients with asymptomatic hematuria for the presence of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Eugene K Cha; Lenuta-Ancuta Tirsar; Christian Schwentner; Joerg Hennenlotter; Paul J Christos; Arnulf Stenzl; Christine Mian; Thomas Martini; Armin Pycha; Shahrokh F Shariat; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Targeting bladder tumor cells in voided urine of Chinese patients with FITC-CSNRDARRC peptide ligand.

Authors:  Xing-You Jia; Qi Yu; Zhe-Hui Zhang; Xiao-Feng Yang
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2012-05-07       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.