Literature DB >> 21372037

A framework for evaluating biomarkers for early detection: validation of biomarker panels for ovarian cancer.

Claire S Zhu1, Paul F Pinsky, Daniel W Cramer, David F Ransohoff, Patricia Hartge, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Nicole Urban, Gil Mor, Robert C Bast, Lee E Moore, Anna E Lokshin, Martin W McIntosh, Steven J Skates, Allison Vitonis, Zhen Zhang, David C Ward, James T Symanowski, Aleksey Lomakin, Eric T Fung, Patrick M Sluss, Nathalie Scholler, Karen H Lu, Adele M Marrangoni, Christos Patriotis, Sudhir Srivastava, Saundra S Buys, Christine D Berg.   

Abstract

A panel of biomarkers may improve predictive performance over individual markers. Although many biomarker panels have been described for ovarian cancer, few studies used prediagnostic samples to assess the potential of the panels for early detection. We conducted a multisite systematic evaluation of biomarker panels using prediagnostic serum samples from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial. Using a nested case-control design, levels of 28 biomarkers were measured laboratory-blinded in 118 serum samples obtained before cancer diagnosis and 951 serum samples from matched controls. Five predictive models, each containing 6 to 8 biomarkers, were evaluated according to a predetermined analysis plan. Three sequential analyses were conducted: blinded validation of previously established models (step 1); simultaneous split-sample discovery and validation of models (step 2); and exploratory discovery of new models (step 3). Sensitivity, specificity, sensitivity at 98% specificity, and AUC were computed for the models and CA125 alone among 67 cases diagnosed within one year of blood draw and 476 matched controls. In step 1, one model showed comparable performance to CA125, with sensitivity, specificity, and AUC at 69.2%, 96.6%, and 0.892, respectively. Remaining models had poorer performance than CA125 alone. In step 2, we observed a similar pattern. In step 3, a model derived from all 28 markers failed to show improvement over CA125. Thus, biomarker panels discovered in diagnostic samples may not validate in prediagnostic samples; utilizing prediagnostic samples for discovery may be helpful in developing validated early detection panels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21372037      PMCID: PMC3057372          DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)        ISSN: 1940-6215


  29 in total

Review 1.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

Authors:  M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer; Martin McIntosh; Blossom H Patterson; Yu Shyr; Steven Skates
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 3.  Epidemiology informing clinical practice: from bills of mortality to population laboratories.

Authors:  John D Potter
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2005-12

4.  The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: history, organization, and status.

Authors:  J K Gohagan; P C Prorok; R B Hayes; B S Kramer
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-12

5.  Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Emanuel F Petricoin; Ali M Ardekani; Ben A Hitt; Peter J Levine; Vincent A Fusaro; Seth M Steinberg; Gordon B Mills; Charles Simone; David A Fishman; Elise C Kohn; Lance A Liotta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-02-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass.

Authors:  Richard G Moore; D Scott McMeekin; Amy K Brown; Paul DiSilvestro; M Craig Miller; W Jeffrey Allard; Walter Gajewski; Robert Kurman; Robert C Bast; Steven J Skates
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-12       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Combining multiple serum tumor markers improves detection of stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Zhen Zhang; Yinhua Yu; Fengji Xu; Andrew Berchuck; Carolien van Haaften-Day; Laura J Havrilesky; Henk W A de Bruijn; Ate G J van der Zee; Robert P Woolas; Ian J Jacobs; Steven Skates; Daniel W Chan; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff; Margaret L Gourlay
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  Garnet L Anderson; Martin McIntosh; Lieling Wu; Matt Barnett; Gary Goodman; Jason D Thorpe; Lindsay Bergan; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Nam Kim; Kathy O'Briant; Charles Drescher; Nicole Urban
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 13.506

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

View more
  82 in total

Review 1.  Protein biomarkers of ovarian cancer: the forest and the trees.

Authors:  Brian M Nolen; Anna E Lokshin
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.404

2.  Designing early detection programs for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  N Urban
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 3.  Functional biomarkers of depression: diagnosis, treatment, and pathophysiology.

Authors:  Heath D Schmidt; Richard C Shelton; Ronald S Duman
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 7.853

4.  Screening for bladder cancer with urinary tumor markers in chemical workers with exposure to aromatic amines.

Authors:  Beate Pesch; Dirk Taeger; Georg Johnen; Katarzyna Gawrych; Nadine Bonberg; Christian Schwentner; Harald Wellhäusser; Matthias Kluckert; Gabriele Leng; Michael Nasterlack; Yair Lotan; Arnulf Stenzl; Thomas Brüning
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 3.015

5.  Cancer: Missing the mark.

Authors:  Lizzie Buchen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Laboratory detective work identifies a mishandling problem in sample aliquoting.

Authors:  Claire Zhu; Paul Pinsky; Wen-Yi Huang; Mark Purdue
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 7.  New paradigms in translational science research in cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  Paul D Wagner; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 7.012

8.  Microfluidic integration for automated targeted proteomic assays.

Authors:  Alex J Hughes; Robert K C Lin; Donna M Peehl; Amy E Herr
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Longitudinal screening algorithm that incorporates change over time in CA125 levels identifies ovarian cancer earlier than a single-threshold rule.

Authors:  Charles W Drescher; Chirag Shah; Jason Thorpe; Kathy O'Briant; Garnet L Anderson; Christine D Berg; Nicole Urban; Martin W McIntosh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The glycolyzer: automated glycan annotation software for high performance mass spectrometry and its application to ovarian cancer glycan biomarker discovery.

Authors:  Scott R Kronewitter; Maria Lorna A De Leoz; John S Strum; Hyun Joo An; Lauren M Dimapasoc; Andrés Guerrero; Suzanne Miyamoto; Carlito B Lebrilla; Gary S Leiserowitz
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.