Literature DB >> 8841020

Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers.

D F Hayes1, R C Bast, C E Desch, H Fritsche, N E Kemeny, J M Jessup, G Y Locker, J S Macdonald, R G Mennel, L Norton, P Ravdin, S Taube, R J Winn.   

Abstract

Introduction of tumor markers into routine clinical practice has been poorly controlled, with few criteria or guidelines as to how such markers should be used. We propose a Tumor Marker Utility Grading System (TMUGS) to evaluate the clinical utility of tumor markers and to establish an investigational agenda for evaluation of new tumor markers. A Tumor Marker Utility Grading Worksheet has been designed. The initial portion of this worksheet is used to clarify the precise characteristics of the marker in question. These characteristics include the marker designation, the molecule and/or substance and the relevant alteration from normalcy, the assay format and reagents, the specimen type, and the neoplastic disease for which the marker is being evaluated. To determine the clinical utility of each marker, one of several potential uses must be designated, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring clinical course. For each of these uses, associations between marker assay results and expected biologic process and end points must be determined. However, knowledge of tumor marker data should contribute to a decision in practice that results in a more favorable clinical outcome for the patient, including increased overall survival, increased disease-free survival, improvement in quality of life, or reduction in cost of care. Semiquantitative utility scales have been developed for each end point. The only markers recommended for use in routine clinical practice are those that are assigned utility scores of "++" or " " on a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 to ) in the categories relative to more favorable clinical outcomes. Each utility score assignment should be supported by documentation of the level of evidence used to evaluate the marker. TMUGS will establish a standardized analytic technique to evaluate clinical utility of known and future tumor markers. It should result in improved patient outcomes and more cost-efficient investigation and application of tumor markers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8841020     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/88.20.1456

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


  148 in total

Review 1.  Screening with tumor markers: critical issues.

Authors:  J E Roulston
Journal:  Mol Biotechnol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.695

Review 2.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer: current and new predictors of metastasis.

Authors:  D F Hayes; C Isaacs; V Stearns
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 3.  Molecular biology of breast cancer.

Authors:  Miguel Martín
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 4.  Cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  N Lynn Henry; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 6.603

5.  Experience in Phase I Trials and an Upcoming Phase II Study with uPA Inhibitors in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Lori J Goldstein
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Assessment of Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator and Its Inhibitor PAI-1 in Breast Cancer Tissue: Historical Aspects and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Manfred Schmitt; Karin Mengele; Apostolos Gkazepis; Rudolf Napieralski; Viktor Magdolen; Ute Reuning; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Prospective Biomarker Trials Chemo N0 and NNBC-3 Europe Validate the Clinical Utility of Invasion Markers uPA and PAI-1 in Node-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Nadia Harbeck; Manfred Schmitt; Martina Vetter; Janna Krol; Daniela Paepke; Mathias Uhlig; Stefan Paepke; Fritz Jänicke; Anneke Geurts-Moespot; Gunter von Minckwitz; Fred Sweep; Christoph Thomssen
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Prognostic relevance of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) mRNA and protein expression in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Christine Schröder; Karin Milde-Langosch; Florian Gebauer; Katharina Schmid; Volkmar Mueller; Ralph M Wirtz; Catherine Meyer-Schwesinger; Hartmut Schlüter; Guido Sauter; Udo Schumacher
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 9.  Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data.

Authors:  Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Mia A Levy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Expression of CA125 and cisplatin susceptibility of pleural effusion-derived human lung cancer cells from a Thai patient.

Authors:  Pithi Chanvorachote; Sudjit Luanpitpong; Preedakorn Chunhacha; Worrawat Promden; Virote Sriuranpong
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 2.967

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.