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

Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond

In oncology, prognostic markers are clinical measures used to help elicit an individual patient's risk of a future outcome, such as recurrence of disease after primary treatment. They thus facilitate individual treatment choice and aid in patient counselling. Evidence-based results regarding prognostic markers are therefore very important to both clinicians and their patients. However, there is increasing awareness that prognostic marker studies have been neglected in the drive to improve medical research. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with appropriate statistical analysis and clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often only able to draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. We discuss how better-quality prognostic marker evidence can evolve over time from initial exploratory studies, to large protocol-driven primary studies, and then to meta-analysis or even beyond, to large prospectively planned pooled analyses and to the initiation of tumour banks. We highlight articles that facilitate each stage of this process, and that promote current guidelines aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of prognostic marker research. We also outline why collaborative, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary teams should be an essential part of future studies

Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future

Prognostic markers help to stratify patients for treatment by identifying patients with different risks of outcome (e.g. recurrence of disease), and are important tools in the management of cancer and many other diseases. Systematic review and meta-analytical approaches to identifying the most valuable prognostic markers are needed because (sometimes conflicting) evidence relating to markers is often published across a number of studies. To investigate the practicality of this approach, an empirical investigation of a systematic review of tumour markers for neuroblastoma was performed; 260 studies of prognostic markers were identified, which considered 130 different markers

Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a binary outcome

In prediction model research, external validation is needed to examine an existing model's performance using data independent to that for model development. Current external validation studies often suffer from small sample sizes and consequently imprecise predictive performance estimates. To address this, we propose how to determine the minimum sample size needed for a new external validation study of a prediction model for a binary outcome. Our calculations aim to precisely estimate calibration (Observed/Expected and calibration slope), discrimination (C-statistic), and clinical utility (net benefit). For each measure, we propose closed-form and iterative solutions for calculating the minimum sample size required. These require specifying: (i) target SEs (confidence interval widths) for each estimate of interest, (ii) the anticipated outcome event proportion in the validation population, (iii) the prediction model's anticipated (mis)calibration and variance of linear predictor values in the validation population, and (iv) potential risk thresholds for clinical decision-making. The calculations can also be used to inform whether the sample size of an existing (already collected) dataset is adequate for external validation. We illustrate our proposal for external validation of a prediction model for mechanical heart valve failure with an expected outcome event proportion of 0.018. Calculations suggest at least 9835 participants (177 events) are required to precisely estimate the calibration and discrimination measures, with this number driven by the calibration slope criterion, which we anticipate will often be the case. Also, 6443 participants (116 events) are required to precisely estimate net benefit at a risk threshold of 8%. Software code is provided.</p

Predicting infectious complications in neutropenic children and young people with cancer (IPD protocol)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A common and potentially life-threatening complication of the treatment of childhood cancer is infection, which frequently presents as fever with neutropenia. The standard management of such episodes is the extensive use of intravenous antibiotics, and though it produces excellent survival rates of over 95%, it greatly inconveniences the three-fourths of patients who do not require such aggressive treatment. There have been a number of studies which have aimed to develop risk prediction models to stratify treatment. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis in therapeutic studies has been developed to improve the precision and reliability of answers to questions of treatment effect and recently have been suggested to be used to answer questions regarding prognosis and diagnosis to gain greater power from the frequently small individual studies.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>In the IPD protocol, we will collect and synthesise IPD from multiple studies and examine the outcomes of episodes of febrile neutropenia as a consequence of their treatment for malignant disease. We will develop and evaluate a risk stratification model using hierarchical regression models to stratify patients by their risk of experiencing adverse outcomes during an episode. We will also explore specific practical and methodological issues regarding adaptation of established techniques of IPD meta-analysis of interventions for use in synthesising evidence derived from IPD from multiple studies for use in predictive modelling contexts.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our aim in using this model is to define a group of individuals at low risk for febrile neutropenia who might be treated with reduced intensity or duration of antibiotic therapy and so reduce the inconvenience and cost of these episodes, as well as to define a group of patients at very high risk of complications who could be subject to more intensive therapies. The project will also help develop methods of IPD predictive modelling for use in future studies of risk prediction.</p

Social, Structural and Behavioral Determinants of Overall Health Status in a Cohort of Homeless and Unstably Housed HIV-Infected Men

Background: Previous studies indicate multiple influences on the overall health of HIV-infected persons; however, few assess and rank longitudinal changes in social and structural barriers that are disproportionately found in impoverished populations. We empirically ranked factors that longitudinally impact the overall health status of HIV-infected homeless and unstably housed men. Methods and Findings: Between 2002 and 2008, a cohort of 288 HIV+ homeless and unstably housed men was recruited and followed over time. The population was 60 % non-Caucasian and the median age was 41 years; 67 % of study participants reported recent drug use and 20 % reported recent homelessness. At baseline, the median CD4 cell count was 349 cells/ml and 18 % of eligible persons (CD4,350) took antiretroviral therapy (ART). Marginal structural models were used to estimate the population-level effects of behavioral, social, and structural factors on overall physical and mental health status (measured by the SF-36), and targeted variable importance (tVIM) was used to empirically rank factors by their influence. After adjusting for confounding, and in order of their influence, the three factors with the strongest negative effects on physical health were unmet subsistence needs, Caucasian race, and no reported source of instrumental support. The three factors with the strongest negative effects on mental health were unmet subsistence needs, not having a close friend/confidant, and drug use. ART adherence.90 % ranked 5th for its positive influence on mental health, and viral loa

Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Background Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease. Methods and Findings We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time. The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66). Conclusion Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research

Therapeutic efficacy of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy on the loss of lung tissue: an integrated analysis of 2 randomised clinical trials using computed tomography densitometry

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of IV alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) augmentation therapy on emphysema progression using CT densitometry.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from these similar trials, a 2-center Danish-Dutch study (n = 54) and the 3-center EXAcerbations and CT scan as Lung Endpoints (EXACTLE) study (n = 65), were pooled to increase the statistical power. The change in 15^thpercentile of lung density (PD15) measured by CT scan was obtained from both trials. All subjects had 1 CT scan at baseline and at least 1 CT scan after treatment. Densitometric data from 119 patients (AAT [Alfalastin^®or Prolastin^®], n = 60; placebo, n = 59) were analysed by a statistical/endpoint analysis method. To adjust for lung volume, volume correction was made by including the change in log-transformed total lung volume as a covariate in the statistical model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean follow-up was approximately 2.5 years. The mean change in lung density from baseline to last CT scan was -4.082 g/L for AAT and -6.379 g/L for placebo with a treatment difference of 2.297 (95% CI, 0.669 to 3.926; p = 0.006). The corresponding annual declines were -1.73 and -2.74 g/L/yr, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The overall results of the combined analysis of 2 separate trials of comparable design, and the only 2 controlled clinical trials completed to date, has confirmed that IV AAT augmentation therapy significantly reduces the decline in lung density and may therefore reduce the future risk of mortality in patients with AAT deficiency-related emphysema.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The EXACTLE study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as 'Antitrypsin (AAT) to Treat Emphysema in AAT-Deficient Patients'; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00263887.</p

Is looped nasogastric tube feeding more effective than conventional nasogastric tube feeding for dysphagia in acute stroke?

Background: Dysphagia occurs in up to 50% of patients admitted to hospital with acute strokes with up to 27% remaining by seven days. Up to 8% continue to have swallowing problems six months after their stroke with 1.7% still requiring enteral feeding. Nasogastric tubes (NGT) are the most commonly used method for providing enteral nutrition in early stroke, however they are easily and frequently removed leading to inadequate nutrition, early PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) insertion or abandoning of feeding attempts. Looped nasogastric tube feeding may improve the delivery of nutrition to such patients. Methods: Three centre, two arm randomised controlled trial, with 50 participants in each arm comparing loop (the intervention) versus conventional nasogastric tube feeding. The primary outcome measure is proportion of intended feed delivered in the first 2 weeks. The study is designed to show a mean increase of feed delivery of 16% in the intervention group as compared with the control group, with 90% power at a 5% significance level. Secondary outcomes are treatment failures, mean volume of feed received, adverse events, cost-effectiveness, number of chest x-rays, number of nasogastric tubes and tolerability

Improving Interpretation of Cardiac Phenotypes and Enhancing Discovery With Expanded Knowledge in the Gene Ontology

This work was funded through grants from the British Heart Foundation (BHF, SP/07/007/23671, RG/13/5/30112) and the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; The Zebrafish Model Organism Database: National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI, HG002659, HG004838, HG004834); The Rat Genome Database: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute on behalf of the NIH (HL64541); The Mouse Genome Database: NGHRI (HG003300); FlyBase: UK Medical Research Council (G1000968); and Gene Ontology Consortium: NIH NHGRI (U41 HG002273) to Drs Blake, Cherry, Lewis, Sternberg, and Thomas. Professor Riley received BHF personal chair award (CH/11/1/28798). Professors Lambiase and Tinker received support from BHF and UK Medical Research Council. Professor Tinker received National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Barts and BHF grant (RG/15/15/31742). Dr Roncaglia received EMBL-EBI Core funds