Literature DB >> 26109106

The Fundamental Difficulty With Evaluating the Accuracy of Biomarkers for Guiding Treatment.

Holly Janes1, Margaret S Pepe2, Lisa M McShane2, Daniel J Sargent2, Patrick J Heagerty2.   

Abstract

Developing biomarkers that can predict whether patients are likely to benefit from an intervention is a pressing objective in many areas of medicine. Recent guidance documents have recommended that the accuracy of predictive biomarkers, ie, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, should be assessed. We clarify the meanings of these entities for predictive markers and demonstrate that generally they cannot be estimated from data without making strong untestable assumptions. Language suggesting that predictive biomarkers can identify patients who benefit from an intervention is also widespread. We show that in general one cannot estimate the chance that a patient will benefit from treatment. We recommend instead that predictive biomarkers be evaluated with respect to their ability to predict clinical outcomes among patients treated and among patients receiving standard of care, and the population impact of treatment rules based on those predictions. Ideally these entities are estimated from a randomized trial comparing the experimental intervention with standard of care.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26109106      PMCID: PMC4609557          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  25 in total

1.  Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections.

Authors:  Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian; Peggy H Wong; L J Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Variable selection for optimal treatment decision.

Authors:  Wenbin Lu; Hao Helen Zhang; Donglin Zeng
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES.

Authors:  Min Qian; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Ann Stat       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 4.028

5.  Assessing treatment-selection markers using a potential outcomes framework.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Peter B Gilbert; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies.

Authors:  Roland A Matsouaka; Junlong Li; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.968

9.  Issues in clinical trial design for tumor marker studies.

Authors:  Daniel Sargent; Carmen Allegra
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 10.  American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy.

Authors:  Carmen J Allegra; J Milburn Jessup; Mark R Somerfield; Stanley R Hamilton; Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Pamela K McAllister; Roscoe F Morton; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.

Authors:  David M Kent; Ewout Steyerberg; David van Klaveren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-10

2.  On the quantitative assessment of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Jason P Fine; Michael Pencina
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Marco Bonetti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Molecular and Functional Diagnostic Tools in Precision Oncology for Urological Malignancies.

Authors:  Vasanthakumar Sekar; Debapriya Ghosh Mehrotra; Biswanath Majumder
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-12-15

5.  Sample size methods for evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Kevin K Dobbin; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 6.  Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future.

Authors:  Christina M Annunziata; Elise C Kohn
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  MGMT promoter methylation status testing to guide therapy for glioblastoma: refining the approach based on emerging evidence and current challenges.

Authors:  Alireza Mansouri; Laureen D Hachem; Sheila Mansouri; Farshad Nassiri; Normand J Laperriere; Daniel Xia; Neal I Lindeman; Patrick Y Wen; Arnab Chakravarti; Minesh P Mehta; Monika E Hegi; Roger Stupp; Kenneth D Aldape; Gelareh Zadeh
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Auxiliary variable-enriched biomarker-stratified design.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Xiaofei Wang; Haibo Zhou; Jianwen Cai; Stephen L George
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-16       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  David M Kent; David van Klaveren; Jessica K Paulus; Ralph D'Agostino; Steve Goodman; Rodney Hayward; John P A Ioannidis; Bray Patrick-Lake; Sally Morton; Michael Pencina; Gowri Raman; Joseph S Ross; Harry P Selker; Ravi Varadhan; Andrew Vickers; John B Wong; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury for people who are being considered for admission to critical care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Miriam Brazzelli; Lorna Aucott; Magaly Aceves-Martins; Clare Robertson; Elisabet Jacobsen; Mari Imamura; Amudha Poobalan; Paul Manson; Graham Scotland; Callum Kaye; Simon Sawhney; Dwayne Boyers
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 4.106

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.