Shortcomings in the evaluation of biomarkers in ovarian cancer: a systematic review.
biomarker development
biomarkers
clinical evaluations
ovarian cancer
study designs
Journal
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
ISSN: 1437-4331
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem Lab Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9806306
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Dec 2019
18 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
11
01
2019
accepted:
09
03
2019
pubmed:
9
4
2019
medline:
5
9
2020
entrez:
9
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Shortcomings in study design have been hinted at as one of the possible causes of failures in the translation of discovered biomarkers into the care of ovarian cancer patients, but systematic assessments of biomarker studies are scarce. We aimed to document study design features of recently reported evaluations of biomarkers in ovarian cancer. Methods We performed a systematic search in PubMed (MEDLINE) for reports of studies evaluating the clinical performance of putative biomarkers in ovarian cancer. We extracted data on study designs and characteristics. Results Our search resulted in 1026 studies; 329 (32%) were found eligible after screening, of which we evaluated the first 200. Of these, 93 (47%) were single center studies. Few studies reported eligibility criteria (17%), sampling methods (10%) or a sample size justification or power calculation (3%). Studies often used disjoint groups of patients, sometimes with extreme phenotypic contrasts; 46 studies included healthy controls (23%), but only five (3%) had exclusively included advanced stage cases. Conclusions Our findings confirm the presence of suboptimal features in clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers. This may lead to premature claims about the clinical value of these markers or, alternatively, the risk of discarding potential biomarkers that are urgently needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30956227
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2019-0038
pii: cclm-2019-0038
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3-10Références
Liao C-I, Chow S, Chen L, Kapp DS, Mann A, Chan JK. Trends in the incidence of serous fallopian tube, ovarian, and peritoneal cancer in the US. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:318–23.
Timmermans M, Sonke GS, Van de Vijver KK, van der Aa MA, Kruitwagen RF. No improvement in long-term survival for epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a population-based study between 1989 and 2014 in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2018;88:31–7.
Diamandis EP. The failure of protein cancer biomarkers to reach the clinic: why, and what can be done to address the problem? BMC Med 2012;10:87.
Pavlou MP, Diamandis EP, Blasutig IM. The long journey of cancer biomarkers from the bench to the clinic. Clin Chem 2013;59:147–57.
Duffy MJ, Sturgeon CM, Soletormos G, Barak V, Molina R, Hayes DF, et al. Validation of new cancer biomarkers: a position statement from the European Group on tumor markers. Clin Chem 2015;61:809–20.
Ioannidis JP, Bossuyt PM. Waste, leaks, and failures in the biomarker pipeline. Clin Chem 2017;63:963–72.
Rifai N, Gillette MA, Carr SA. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:971–83.
Horvath AR, Lord SJ, St John A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert CM, Lorenz S, et al. From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:49–57.
Pepe MS, Feng Z. Improving biomarker identification with better designs and reporting. Clin Chem 2011;57:1093–5.
Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, Bossuyt PM, Potter JD. Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1432–8.
Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:469–76.
Ioannidis JP. Biomarker failures. Clin Chem 2013;59:202–4.
Diamandis EP. Cancer biomarkers: can we turn recent failures into success? J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1462–7.
Ransohoff DF. Opinion: bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:142–9.
Ransohoff DF. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:1205–19.
Leung F, Diamandis EP, Kulasingam V. Ovarian cancer biomarkers: current state and future implications from high-throughput technologies. Adv Clin Chem 2014;66:25–77.
Tajik P, Zwinderman AH, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Trial designs for personalizing cancer care: a systematic review and classification. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:4578–88.
Strimbu K, Tavel JA. What are biomarkers? Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2010;5:463–6.
Knottnerus JA, Muris JW. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1118–28.
Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. J Am Med Assoc 1999;282:1061.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529.
Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med 2015;12.
Pearl ML, Dong H, Tulley S, Zhao Q, Golightly M, Zucker S, et al. Treatment monitoring of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer using invasive circulating tumor cells (iCTCs). Gynecol Oncol 2015;137:229–38.
Chen X, Paranjape T, Stahlhut C, McVeigh T, Keane F, Nallur S, et al. Targeted resequencing of the microRNAome and 3′UTRome reveals functional germline DNA variants with altered prevalence in epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncogene 2015;34:2125–37.
Ransohoff DF, Gourlay ML. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:698–704.
Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the diagnostic process. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:481–2.
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J 2016;6.
Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2012;9.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Epidemiology 2007;18:805–35.
Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:92–102.
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:55.
Korevaar DA, Wang J, van Enst WA, Leeflang MM, Hooft L, Smidt N, et al. Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. Radiology 2015;274:781–9.
Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010;8:24.
Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014;383:267–76.
Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1446–52.
Henry NL, Hayes DF. Cancer biomarkers. Mol Oncol 2012;6:140–6.
Ferraro S, Panteghini M. Making new biomarkers a reality: the case of serum human epididymis protein 4. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1284–94.
The Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium (OTTA). OTTA [Internet]. [cited 2018 Apr 3]. Available from: https://ottaconsortium.org/.
Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). OCAC [Internet]. [cited 2018 Apr 3]. Available from: http://apps.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/consortia/ocac//aims/aims.html.
Monaghan PJ, Lord SJ, St John A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert CM, Lennartz L, et al. Biomarker development targeting unmet clinical needs. Clin Chim Acta 2016;460:211–9.