Literature DB >> 23939561

A practical guide to epidemiological practice and standards in the identification and validation of diagnostic markers using a bladder cancer example.

T Behrens1, N Bonberg, S Casjens, B Pesch, T Brüning.   

Abstract

Technical advances to analyze biological markers have generated a plethora of promising new marker candidates for early detection of cancer. However, in subsequent analyses only few could be successfully validated as being predictive, clinically useful, or effective. This failure is partially due to rapid publication of results that were detected in early stages of biomarker research. Methodological considerations are a major concern when carrying out molecular epidemiological studies of diagnostic markers to avoid errors that increase the potential for bias. Although guidelines for conducting studies and reporting of results have been published to improve the quality of marker studies, their planning and execution still need to be improved. We will discuss different sources of bias in study design, handling of specimens, and statistical analysis to illustrate possible pitfalls associated with marker research, and present legal, ethical, and technical considerations associated with storage and handling of specimens. This article presents a guide to epidemiological standards in marker research using bladder cancer as an example. Because of the possibility to detect early cancer stages due to leakage of molecular markers from the target organ or exfoliation of tumor cells into the urine, bladder cancer is particularly useful to study diagnostic markers. To improve the overall quality of marker research, future developments should focus on networks of studies and tissue banks according to uniform legal, ethical, methodological, and technical standards. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Computational Proteomics in the Post-Identification Era. Guest Editors: Martin Eisenacher and Christian Stephan.
© 2013.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Biomarker; Confounder; Epidemiology; Methodology; PRoBE

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23939561     DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta        ISSN: 0006-3002


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Early diagnosis of bladder cancer through the detection of urinary tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins.

Authors:  A Khadjavi; F Mannu; P Destefanis; C Sacerdote; A Battaglia; M Allasia; D Fontana; B Frea; S Polidoro; G Fiorito; G Matullo; A Pantaleo; A Notarpietro; M Prato; F Castagno; P Vineis; P Gontero; G Giribaldi; F Turrini
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  Clinical proteomic biomarkers: relevant issues on study design & technical considerations in biomarker development.

Authors:  Maria Frantzi; Akshay Bhat; Agnieszka Latosinska
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2014-03-29

4.  Highly immunoreactive IgG antibodies directed against a set of twenty human proteins in the sera of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis identified by protein array.

Authors:  Caroline May; Eckhard Nordhoff; Swaantje Casjens; Michael Turewicz; Martin Eisenacher; Ralf Gold; Thomas Brüning; Beate Pesch; Christian Stephan; Dirk Woitalla; Botond Penke; Tamás Janáky; Dezső Virók; László Siklós; Jozsef I Engelhardt; Helmut E Meyer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles.

Authors:  Peggy Sekula; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Willi Sauerbrei
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Exploring solid-phase proximity ligation assay for survivin detection in urine.

Authors:  Jan Gleichenhagen; Christian Arndt; Swaantje Casjens; Carmen Töpfer; Holger Gerullis; Irina Raiko; Dirk Taeger; Thorsten Ecke; Thomas Brüning; Georg Johnen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 7.  The promise of novel molecular markers in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Jahan Miremami; Natasha Kyprianou
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Biomarkers for Predicting Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in a Mexican Population.

Authors:  Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid; Beate Pesch; Emma S Calderón-Aranda; Katarzyna Burek; Carmina Jiménez-Ramírez; Cuauhtémoc Arturo Juárez-Pérez; María Dolores Ochoa-Vázquez; Luis Torre-Bouscoulet; Leonor Concepción Acosta-Saavedra; Isabel Sada-Ovalle; Jorge García-Figueroa; Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero; Patricia Castillo-González; Alejandra Renata Báez-Saldaña; José Rogelio Pérez-Padilla; Juvencio Osnaya-Juárez; Rosa María Rivera-Rosales; Eric Marco García-Bazán; Yolanda Lizbeth Bautista-Aragón; Elimelec Lazcano-Hernandez; Daniel Alejandro Munguía-Canales; Luis Marcelo Argote-Greene; Dirk Taeger; Daniel Gilbert Weber; Swaantje Casjens; Irina Raiko; Thomas Brüning; Georg Johnen
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.738

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.