Literature DB >> 26304062

Comparative Effectiveness of Biomarkers to Target Cancer Treatment: Modeling Implications for Survival and Costs.

Jeanette K Birnbaum1, Foluso O Ademuyiwa2, Josh J Carlson3,4, Leslie Mallinger5, Mark W Mason4, Ruth Etzioni1,4,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers used at the time of diagnosis to tailor treatment decisions may diffuse into clinical practice before data become available on whether biomarker testing reduces cancer mortality. In the interim, quantitative estimates of the mortality impact of testing are needed to assess the value of these diagnostic biomarkers. These estimates are typically generated by customized models that are resource intensive to build and apply.
METHODS: We developed a user-friendly system of models for Cancer Translation of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CANTRANce) to model the mortality impact of cancer interventions. The Diagnostic Biomarker module of this system projects the mortality impact of testing for a diagnostic biomarker, given data on how testing affects treatment recommendations. Costs and quality-of-life outcomes may also be modeled. We applied the Diagnostic Biomarker module to 2 case studies to demonstrate its capabilities.
RESULTS: The user interface (http://www.fhcrc.org/cantrance) allows comparative effectiveness researchers to use the Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce. Our case studies indicate that the model produces estimates on par with those generated by customized models and is a strong tool for quickly generating novel projections. LIMITATIONS: The simple structure that makes CANTRANce user-friendly also constrains the complexity with which cancer progression can be modeled. The quality of the results rests on the quality of the input data, which may pertain to small or dissimilar populations or suffer from informative censoring.
CONCLUSIONS: The Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce is a novel public resource that can provide timely insights into the expected mortality impact of testing for diagnostic biomarkers. The model projections should be useful for understanding the long-term potential of emerging diagnostic biomarkers.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; comparative effectiveness; decision analysis; outcomes research; simulation methods

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26304062      PMCID: PMC4766067          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15601998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  30 in total

1.  End points for adjuvant therapy trials: has the time come to accept disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival?

Authors:  Sharlene Gill; Daniel Sargent
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2006-06

Review 2.  Progress towards personalized medicine.

Authors:  Stewart Bates
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 7.851

Review 3.  Assessment of somatic k-RAS mutations as a mechanism associated with resistance to EGFR-targeted agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Helena Linardou; Issa J Dahabreh; Dimitra Kanaloupiti; Fotios Siannis; Dimitrios Bafaloukos; Paris Kosmidis; Christos A Papadimitriou; Samuel Murray
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Trends in inflammatory breast carcinoma incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program at the National Cancer Institute.

Authors:  Kenneth W Hance; William F Anderson; Susan S Devesa; Heather A Young; Paul H Levine
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  P F Pinsky; A Miller; B S Kramer; T Church; D Reding; P Prorok; E Gelmann; R E Schoen; S Buys; R B Hayes; C D Berg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-01-22       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 6.  Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions.

Authors:  M Krahn; A Gafni
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research.

Authors:  T R Fleming; R L Prentice; M S Pepe; D Glidden
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Cumulative cause-specific mortality for cancer patients in the presence of other causes: a crude analogue of relative survival.

Authors:  K A Cronin; E J Feuer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  The opportunities and challenges of personalized genome-based molecular therapies for cancer: targets, technologies, and molecular chaperones.

Authors:  Paul Workman
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 3.333

10.  The EndoPredict Gene-Expression Assay in Clinical Practice - Performance and Impact on Clinical Decisions.

Authors:  Berit Maria Müller; Elke Keil; Annika Lehmann; Klaus-Jürgen Winzer; Christiane Richter-Ehrenstein; Judith Prinzler; Nikola Bangemann; Angela Reles; Sylvia Stadie; Winfried Schoenegg; Jan Eucker; Marcus Schmidt; Frank Lippek; Korinna Jöhrens; Stefan Pahl; Bruno Valentin Sinn; Jan Budczies; Manfred Dietel; Carsten Denkert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.