Literature DB >> 23299199

From differences in means between cases and controls to risk stratification: a business plan for biomarker development.

Nicolas Wentzensen1, Sholom Wacholder.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Researchers developing biomarkers for early detection can determine the potential for clinical benefit at early stages of development. We provide the theoretical background showing the quantitative connection between biomarker levels in cases and controls and clinically meaningful risk measures, as well as a spreadsheet for researchers to use in their own research. We provide researchers with tools to decide whether a test is useful, whether it needs technical improvement, whether it may work only in specific populations, or whether any further development is futile. The methods described here apply to any method that aims to estimate risk of disease based on biomarkers, clinical tests, genetics, environment, or behavior. SIGNIFICANCE: Many efforts go into futile biomarker development and premature clinical testing. In many instances, predictions for translational success or failure can be made early, simply based on critical analysis of case–control data. Our article presents well-established theory in a form that can be appreciated by biomarker researchers. Furthermore, we provide an interactive spreadsheet that links biomarker performance with specific disease characteristics to evaluate the promise of biomarker candidates at an early stage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23299199      PMCID: PMC3570740          DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Discov        ISSN: 2159-8274            Impact factor:   39.397


  12 in total

Review 1.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes; Gary Longton; Wendy Leisenring; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Finding ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Patricia Hartge; James L Speyer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  The process to discover and develop biomarkers for cancer: a work in progress.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  A study of the impact of adding HPV types to cervical cancer screening and triage tests.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman; Michelle J Khan; Diane Solomon; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Allan Hildesheim; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Maria C Bratti; Cosette M Wheeler; Robert D Burk
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Predictive value of symptoms for early detection of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Mary Anne Rossing; Kristine G Wicklund; Kara L Cushing-Haugen; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Ovarian cancer screening and early detection in the general population.

Authors:  Jose A Rauh-Hain; Thomas C Krivak; Marcela G Del Carmen; Alexander B Olawaiye
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011

8.  Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Li Cheung; Franklin Demuth; Mark Schiffman; Sholom Wacholder; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 9.  Chapter 12: systematic review of prognostic tests.

Authors:  Thomas S Rector; Brent C Taylor; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.128

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
  40 in total

1.  Response.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Barbara Fetterman; Philip Castle; Mark Schiffman; Shannon Wood; Diane Tokugawa; Clara Bodelon; Nancy Poitras; Tom Lorey; Walter Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-27       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Strategies for screening and early detection of anal cancers: A narrative and systematic review and meta-analysis of cytology, HPV testing, and other biomarkers.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Identification of a Novel, EBV-Based Antibody Risk Stratification Signature for Early Detection of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in Taiwan.

Authors:  Allan Hildesheim; Denise L Doolan; Anna E Coghill; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Carla Proietti; Wan-Lun Hsu; Yin-Chu Chien; Lea Lekieffre; Lutz Krause; Andy Teng; Jocelyn Pablo; Kelly J Yu; Pei-Jen Lou; Cheng-Ping Wang; Zhiwei Liu; Chien-Jen Chen; Jaap Middeldorp; Jason Mulvenna; Jeff Bethony
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Detectable Symptomatology Preceding the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer and Absolute Risk of Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Harvey A Risch; Herbert Yu; Lingeng Lu; Mark S Kidd
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Invited Commentary: Clinical Utility of Prediction Models for Rare Outcomes--The Example of Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Ronald C Eldridge
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Epstein-Barr virus serology as a potential screening marker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma among high-risk individuals from multiplex families in Taiwan.

Authors:  Anna E Coghill; Wan-Lun Hsu; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Hedy Juwana; Kelly J Yu; Pei-Jen Lou; Cheng-Ping Wang; Jen-Yang Chen; Chien-Jen Chen; Jaap M Middeldorp; Allan Hildesheim
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-04-27       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Response.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Screening: A risk-based framework to decide who benefits from screening.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 66.675

9.  Circulating inflammatory proteins and gallbladder cancer: Potential for risk stratification to improve prioritization for cholecystectomy in high-risk regions.

Authors:  Jill Koshiol; Yu-Tang Gao; Amanda Corbel; Troy J Kemp; Ming-Chang Shen; Allan Hildesheim; Ann W Hsing; Asif Rashid; Bingsheng Wang; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Ligia A Pinto
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 10.  Current Gaps in Ovarian Cancer Epidemiology: The Need for New Population-Based Research.

Authors:  Jennifer A Doherty; Allan Jensen; Linda E Kelemen; Celeste L Pearce; Elizabeth Poole; Joellen M Schildkraut; Kathryn L Terry; Shelley S Tworoger; Penelope M Webb; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.