Statistical challenges in the development and evaluation of marker-based clinical tests

Exciting new technologies for assessing markers in human specimens are now available to evaluate unprecedented types and numbers of variations in DNA, RNA, proteins, or biological structures such as chromosomes. These markers, whether viewed individually, or collectively as a 'signature', have the potential to be useful for disease risk assessment, screening, early detection, prognosis, therapy selection, and monitoring for therapy effectiveness or disease recurrence. Successful translation from basic research findings to clinically useful test requires basic, translational, and regulatory sciences and a collaborative effort among individuals with varied types of expertise including laboratory scientists, technology developers, clinicians, statisticians, and bioinformaticians. The focus of this commentary is the many statistical challenges in translational marker research, specifically in the development and validation of marker-based tests that have clinical utility for therapeutic decision-making

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials.

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy

The challenge of measuring circulating estradiol at low concentrations

Demand for measuring estradiol at low concentrations is increasing, and the widely used 'direct' radioimmunoassays that do not require a preliminary organic purification step may be inadequate in patient care because of their limited accuracy. In observational epidemiology, however, the main concern is to obtain a correct ranking of individuals' hormone concentration relative to the true level (as determined through a 'gold standard'). Despite differences in the absolute scale of measured and true concentrations, correct ranking will permit calculation of unbiased estimates of hormone–disease associations. In prospective studies, the major concerns are the limited volume of often irreplaceable specimens and the need to perform a large number of assays within a reasonable period of time. Organic purification is often not feasible because of sample volume requirements and logistic difficulties, and so the development of accurate, rapid and inexpensive methods to measure sex steroids at low concentrations would represent a valuable new research tool for both clinicians and epidemiologists

Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement

Cecile Janssens and colleagues present the GRIPS Statement, a checklist to help strengthen the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies

Improving the Prognostic Ability through Better Use of Standard Clinical Data - The Nottingham Prognostic Index as an Example

Background Prognostic factors and prognostic models play a key role in medical research and patient management. The Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) is a well-established prognostic classification scheme for patients with breast cancer. In a very simple way, it combines the information from tumor size, lymph node stage and tumor grade. For the resulting index cutpoints are proposed to classify it into three to six groups with different prognosis. As not all prognostic information from the three and other standard factors is used, we will consider improvement of the prognostic ability using suitable analysis approaches. Methods and Findings Reanalyzing overall survival data of 1560 patients from a clinical database by using multivariable fractional polynomials and further modern statistical methods we illustrate suitable multivariable modelling and methods to derive and assess the prognostic ability of an index. Using a REMARK type profile we summarize relevant steps of the analysis. Adding the information from hormonal receptor status and using the full information from the three NPI components, specifically concerning the number of positive lymph nodes, an extended NPI with improved prognostic ability is derived. Conclusions The prognostic ability of even one of the best established prognostic index in medicine can be improved by using suitable statistical methodology to extract the full information from standard clinical data. This extended version of the NPI can serve as a benchmark to assess the added value of new information, ranging from a new single clinical marker to a derived index from omics data. An established benchmark would also help to harmonize the statistical analyses of such studies and protect against the propagation of many false promises concerning the prognostic value of new measurements. Statistical methods used are generally available and can be used for similar analyses in other diseases

REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply

A systematic review of biomarkers for disease progression in Parkinson's disease

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Adverse prognostic and predictive significance of low DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) expression in early-stage breast cancers

Background: DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs), a serine threonine kinase belonging to the PIKK family (phosphoinositide 3-kinase-like-family of protein kinase), is a critical component of the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway required for the repair of DNA double strand breaks. DNA-PKcs may be involved in breast cancer pathogenesis. Methods: We evaluated clinicopathological significance of DNA-PKcs protein expression in 1161 tumours and DNA-PKcs mRNA expression in 1950 tumours. We correlated DNA-PKcs to other markers of aggressive phenotypes, DNA repair, apoptosis and cell cycle regulation. Results: Low DNA-PKcs protein expression was associated with higher tumour grade, higher mitotic index, tumour de-differentiation and tumour type (ps<0.05). Absence of BRCA1, low XRCC1/SMUG1/APE1/Polβ were also more likely in low DNA-PKcs expressing tumours (ps<0.05). Low DNA-PKcs protein expression was significantly associated with worse breast cancer specific survival (BCCS) in univariate and multivariate analysis (ps<0.01). At the mRNA level, low DNA-PKcs was associated with PAM50.Her2 and PAM50.LumA molecular phenotypes (ps<0.01) and poor BCSS. In patients with ER positive tumours who received endocrine therapy, low DNA-PKcs (protein and mRNA) was associated with poor survival. In ER negative patients, low DNA-PKcs mRNA remains significantly associated with adverse outcome. Conclusions: Our study suggests that low DNA-PKcs expression may have prognostic and predictive significance in breast cancers