Margaret S Pepe1, Holly Janes2, Christopher I Li3, Patrick M Bossuyt4, Ziding Feng5, Jørgen Hilden6. 1. Biostatistics and Biomathematics Program, Public Health Sciences Division, mspepe@u.washington.edu. 2. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Public Health Sciences Division, and. 3. Translational Research Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; 4. Clinical Epidemiology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 5. Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; 6. Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Medical Genetics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many cancer biomarker research studies seek to develop markers that can accurately detect or predict future onset of disease. To design and evaluate these studies, one must specify the levels of accuracy sought. However, justified target levels are rarely available. METHODS: We describe a way to calculate target levels of sensitivity and specificity for a biomarker intended to be applied in a defined clinical context. The calculation requires knowledge of the prevalence or incidence of cases in the clinical population and the ratio of benefit associated with the clinical consequences of a positive biomarker test in cases (true positive) to cost associated with a positive biomarker test in controls (false positive). Guidance is offered on soliciting the cost/benefit ratio. The calculations are based on the longstanding decision theory concept of providing a net benefit on average in the population, and they rely on some assumptions about uniformity of costs and benefits to those tested. RESULTS: Calculations are illustrated with 3 applications: predicting colon cancer recurrence in stage 1 patients; predicting interval breast cancer (between mammography screenings); and screening for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to specify target levels of biomarker performance that enable evaluation of the potential clinical impact of biomarkers in early-phase studies. Nevertheless, biomarkers meeting the criteria should still be tested rigorously in studies that measure the actual impact on patient outcomes of using the biomarker to make clinical decisions.
BACKGROUND: Many cancer biomarker research studies seek to develop markers that can accurately detect or predict future onset of disease. To design and evaluate these studies, one must specify the levels of accuracy sought. However, justified target levels are rarely available. METHODS: We describe a way to calculate target levels of sensitivity and specificity for a biomarker intended to be applied in a defined clinical context. The calculation requires knowledge of the prevalence or incidence of cases in the clinical population and the ratio of benefit associated with the clinical consequences of a positive biomarker test in cases (true positive) to cost associated with a positive biomarker test in controls (false positive). Guidance is offered on soliciting the cost/benefit ratio. The calculations are based on the longstanding decision theory concept of providing a net benefit on average in the population, and they rely on some assumptions about uniformity of costs and benefits to those tested. RESULTS: Calculations are illustrated with 3 applications: predicting colon cancer recurrence in stage 1 patients; predicting interval breast cancer (between mammography screenings); and screening for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to specify target levels of biomarker performance that enable evaluation of the potential clinical impact of biomarkers in early-phase studies. Nevertheless, biomarkers meeting the criteria should still be tested rigorously in studies that measure the actual impact on patient outcomes of using the biomarker to make clinical decisions.
Authors: M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; C M Tangen; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick; M H Veeder; J A Mailliard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-03-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Steven J Skates; Michael A Gillette; Joshua LaBaer; Steven A Carr; Leigh Anderson; Daniel C Liebler; David Ransohoff; Nader Rifai; Marina Kondratovich; Živana Težak; Elizabeth Mansfield; Ann L Oberg; Ian Wright; Grady Barnes; Mitchell Gail; Mehdi Mesri; Christopher R Kinsinger; Henry Rodriguez; Emily S Boja Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 4.466
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
Authors: Kazufumi Honda; Verena A Katzke; Anika Hüsing; Shinobu Okaya; Hirokazu Shoji; Kaoru Onidani; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Elisabete Weiderpass; Paolo Vineis; David Muller; Kostas Tsilidis; Domenico Palli; Valeria Pala; Rosario Tumino; Alessio Naccarati; Salvatore Panico; Krasimira Aleksandrova; Heiner Boeing; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H Peeters; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nick Wareham; Ruth C Travis; Susana Merino; Eric J Duell; Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco; María Dolores Chirlaque; Aurelio Barricarte; Vinciane Rebours; Marie-Chiristine Boutron-Ruault; Francesca Romana Mancini; Paul Brennan; Ghislaine Scelo; Jonas Manjer; Malin Sund; Daniel Öhlund; Federico Canzian; Rudolf Kaaks Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Melanie M Ivancic; Bryant W Megna; Yuriy Sverchkov; Mark Craven; Mark Reichelderfer; Perry J Pickhardt; Michael R Sussman; Gregory D Kennedy Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Catherine Rufatto Sears; Doug A Arenberg; Mina Gaga; Michael K Gould; Pierre P Massion; Vish S Nair; Charles A Powell; Gerard A Silvestri; Anil Vachani; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405