Literature DB >> 30658540

Cancer Screening Markers: A Simple Strategy to Substantially Reduce the Sample Size for Validation.

Stuart G Baker1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies to validate a cancer prediction model based on cancer screening markers collected in stored specimens from asymptomatic persons typically require large specimen collection sample sizes. A standard sample size calculation targets a true-positive rate (TPR) of 0.8 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.7 at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 0.01 with a 5% upper bound of 0.03. If the probability of developing cancer during the study is P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the standard calculation is 7600.
METHODS: The strategy to reduce the specimen collection sample size is to decrease both the lower bound of TPR and the upper bound of FPR while keeping a positive lower bound on the anticipated clinical utility.
RESULTS: The new sample size calculation targets a TPR of 0.4 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.10 and an FPR of 0.0 with a 5% upper bound of 0.005. With P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the new calculation is 1800 instead of 7600. LIMITATIONS: The new sample size calculation requires a minimum benefit/cost ratio (number of false positives traded for a true positive). With P = 0.01, the minimum cost-benefit ratio is 5, which is plausible in many studies.
CONCLUSION: In validation studies for cancer screening markers, the strategy can substantially reduce the specimen collection sample size, substantially reducing costs and making some otherwise infeasible studies now feasible.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarker; cancer; early detection; sample size; study design

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30658540      PMCID: PMC6374183          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18819792

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.

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

2.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

3.  The numerical measure of the success of predictions.

Authors:  C S Peirce
Journal:  Science       Date:  1884-11-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Probability of pancreatic cancer following diabetes: a population-based study.

Authors:  Suresh T Chari; Cynthia L Leibson; Kari G Rabe; Jeanine Ransom; Mariza de Andrade; Gloria M Petersen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Improving the biomarker pipeline to develop and evaluate cancer screening tests.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Kelly Yu; Barnett S Kramer; Amanda Black; Saundra S Buys; Edward Partridge; John Gohagan; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Validation of Biomarkers for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: Summary of The Alliance of Pancreatic Cancer Consortia for Biomarkers for Early Detection Workshop.

Authors:  Matthew R Young; Paul D Wagner; Sharmistha Ghosh; Jo Ann Rinaudo; Stuart G Baker; Kenneth S Zaret; Michael Goggins; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.327

8.  Markers for early detection of cancer: statistical guidelines for nested case-control studies.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2002-02-28       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Risk Algorithm Using Serial Biomarker Measurements Doubles the Number of Screen-Detected Cancers Compared With a Single-Threshold Rule in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Usha Menon; Andy Ryan; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Anne Dawnay; Mariam Habib; Sophia Apostolidou; Naveena Singh; Elizabeth Benjamin; Matthew Burnell; Susan Davies; Aarti Sharma; Richard Gunu; Keith Godfrey; Alberto Lopes; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Howard Jenkins; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John B Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Ian Scott; Lesley Fallowfield; Martin Widschwendter; Karina Reynolds; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Mahesh Parmar; Steven J Skates; Ian Jacobs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Risk factors associated with adverse events during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling.

Authors:  Kwang Hyuck Lee; Eun Young Kim; Juhee Cho; Danbee Kang; Seungmin Bang; Hyung Kil Kim; Gwang Ha Kim; Hyun Jong Choi; Joung-Ho Han; Seong Woo Jeon; Ji Kon Ryu; Jeong Seop Moon; Tae Hee Lee; Jin Woong Cho; Tae Hyeon Kim; Young Koog Cheon; Chang-Hwan Park; Jong Kyun Lee; Jong Ho Moon; Chang Min Cho
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.