Literature DB >> 24361552

Biomarker research with prospective study designs for the early detection of cancer.

B Pesch1, T Brüning2, G Johnen3, S Casjens3, N Bonberg4, D Taeger3, A Müller4, D G Weber3, T Behrens2.   

Abstract

This article describes the principles of marker research with prospective studies along with examples for diagnostic tumor markers. A plethora of biomarkers have been claimed as useful for the early detection of cancer. However, disappointingly few biomarkers were approved for the detection of unrecognized disease, and even approved markers may lack a sound validation phase. Prospective studies aimed at the early detection of cancer are costly and long-lasting and therefore the bottleneck in marker research. They enroll a large number of clinically asymptomatic subjects and follow-up on incident cases. As invasive procedures cannot be applied to collect tissue samples from the target organ, biomarkers can only be determined in easily accessible body fluids. Marker levels increase during cancer development, with samples collected closer to the occurrence of symptoms or a clinical diagnosis being more informative than earlier samples. Only prospective designs allow the serial collection of pre-diagnostic samples. Their storage in a biobank upgrades cohort studies to serve for both, marker discovery and validation. Population-based cohort studies, which may collect a wealth of data, are commonly conducted with just one baseline investigation lacking serial samples. However, they can provide valuable information about factors that influence the marker level. Screening programs can be employed to archive serial samples but require significant efforts to collect samples and auxiliary data for marker research. Randomized controlled trials have the highest level of evidence in assessing a biomarker's benefit against usual care and present the most stringent design for the validation of promising markers as well as for the discovery of new markers. In summary, all kinds of prospective studies can benefit from a biobank as they can serve as a platform for biomarker research. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Biomarkers: A Proteomic Challenge.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Diagnostic marker; Prospective study; Screening; Study design; Validation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24361552     DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.12.007

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


  25 in total

1.  Evaluation of disposable microfluidic chip design for automated and fast Immunoassays.

Authors:  Guochun Wang; Champak Das; Bradley Ledden; Qian Sun; Chien Nguyen; Sai Kumar
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 2.800

Review 2.  Methods for Stratification and Validation Cohorts: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Teresa Torres Moral; Albert Sanchez-Niubo; Anna Monistrol-Mula; Chiara Gerardi; Rita Banzi; Paula Garcia; Jacques Demotes-Mainard; Josep Maria Haro
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-04-26

3.  EPMA position paper in cancer: current overview and future perspectives.

Authors:  Godfrey Grech; Xianquan Zhan; Byong Chul Yoo; Rostyslav Bubnov; Suzanne Hagan; Romano Danesi; Giorgio Vittadini; Dominic M Desiderio
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 6.543

4.  Combination of MiR-103a-3p and mesothelin improves the biomarker performance of malignant mesothelioma diagnosis.

Authors:  Daniel G Weber; Swaantje Casjens; Georg Johnen; Oleksandr Bryk; Irina Raiko; Beate Pesch; Jens Kollmeier; Torsten T Bauer; Thomas Brüning
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Chromosomal alterations in exfoliated urothelial cells from bladder cancer cases and healthy men: a prospective screening study.

Authors:  Nadine Bonberg; Beate Pesch; Thomas Behrens; Georg Johnen; Dirk Taeger; Katarzyna Gawrych; Christian Schwentner; Harald Wellhäußer; Matthias Kluckert; Gabriele Leng; Michael Nasterlack; Christoph Oberlinner; Arnulf Stenzl; Thomas Brüning
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Prospective evaluation of 64 serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for early detection of colorectal cancer in a true screening setting.

Authors:  Hongda Chen; Simone Werner; Julia Butt; Inka Zörnig; Phillip Knebel; Angelika Michel; Stefan B Eichmüller; Dirk Jäger; Tim Waterboer; Michael Pawlita; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-03-29

7.  Evaluation of a New Survivin ELISA and UBC® Rapid for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Urine.

Authors:  Jan Gleichenhagen; Christian Arndt; Swaantje Casjens; Carmen Meinig; Holger Gerullis; Irina Raiko; Thomas Brüning; Thorsten Ecke; Georg Johnen
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Soluble chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 16 (CXCL16) in urine as a novel biomarker candidate to identify high grade and muscle invasive urothelial carcinomas.

Authors:  Kerstin Lang; Nadine Bonberg; Sibylle Robens; Thomas Behrens; Jan Hovanec; Thomas Deix; Katharina Braun; Florian Roghmann; Joachim Noldus; Volker Harth; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel; Yu Chun Tam; Andrea Tannapfel; Heiko Udo Käfferlein; Thomas Brüning
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-08

9.  Calretinin as a blood-based biomarker for mesothelioma.

Authors:  Georg Johnen; Katarzyna Gawrych; Irina Raiko; Swaantje Casjens; Beate Pesch; Daniel G Weber; Dirk Taeger; Martin Lehnert; Jens Kollmeier; Torsten Bauer; Arthur W Musk; Bruce W S Robinson; Thomas Brüning; Jenette Creaney
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  PeptideManager: a peptide selection tool for targeted proteomic studies involving mixed samples from different species.

Authors:  Kevin Demeure; Elodie Duriez; Bruno Domon; Simone P Niclou
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.