Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods

被引:63
作者
Baker, SG
Kramer, BS
McIntosh, M
Patterson, BH
Shyr, Y
Skates, S
机构
[1] Natl Inst Hlth, Bethesda, MD USA
[2] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[3] Vanderbilt Ingram Canc Ctr, Nashville, TN USA
[4] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1191/1740774506cn130oa
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: The field of cancer biomarker development has been evolving rapidly. New developments both in the biologic and statistical realms are providing increasing opportunities for evaluation of markers for both early detection and diagnosis of cancer. Purpose: To review the major conceptual and methodological issues in cancer biomarker evaluation, with an emphasis on recent developments in statistical methods together with practical recommendations. Methods: We organized this review by type of study: preliminary performance, retrospective performance, prospective performance and cancer screening evaluation. Results: For each type of study, we discuss methodologic issues, provide examples and discuss strengths and limitations. Conclusion: Preliminary performance studies are useful for quickly winnowing down the number of candidate markers; however their results may not apply to the ultimate target population, asymptomatic subjects. If stored specimens from cohort studies with clinical cancer endpoints are available, retrospective studies provide a quick and valid way to evaluate performance of the markers or changes in the markers prior to the onset of clinical symptoms. Prospective studies have a restricted role because they require large sample sizes, and, if the endpoint is cancer on biopsy, there may be bias due to overdiagnosis. Cancer screening studies require very large sample sizes and long follow-up, but are necessary for evaluating the marker as a trigger of early intervention.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 56
页数:14
相关论文
共 78 条
[71]   Emergentism as a default: Cancer as a problem of tissue organization [J].
Soto, AM ;
Sonnenschein, C .
JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCES, 2005, 30 (01) :103-118
[72]  
Stevenson C E, 1995, Stat Methods Med Res, V4, P18, DOI 10.1177/096228029500400103
[73]   Confounding by dietary factors in case-control studies on the efficacy of cancer screening in Japan [J].
Suzuki, KJ ;
Nakaji, S ;
Tokunaga, S ;
Shimoyama, T ;
Umeda, T ;
Sugawara, K .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 20 (01) :73-78
[74]   Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or lower [J].
Thompson, IM ;
Ankerst, DP ;
Chi, C ;
Lucia, MS ;
Goodman, PJ ;
Crowley, JJ ;
Parnes, HL ;
Coltman, CA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 294 (01) :66-70
[75]   Detection of APC mutations in fecal DNA from patients with colorectal tumors [J].
Traverso, G ;
Shuber, A ;
Levin, B ;
Johnson, C ;
Olsson, L ;
Schoetz, DJ ;
Hamilton, SR ;
Boynton, K ;
Kinzler, KW ;
Vogelstein, B .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2002, 346 (05) :311-320
[76]   Ovarian cancer screening [J].
Urban, N ;
McIntosh, MW ;
Andersen, M ;
Karlan, BY .
HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2003, 17 (04) :989-+
[77]   A review of cancer screening evaluation techniques, with some particular examples in breast cancer screening [J].
Warwick, J ;
Duffy, SW .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2005, 168 :657-677
[78]   Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive test in a repeated screening program [J].
Xu, JL ;
Fagerstrom, RM ;
Prorok, PC ;
Kramer, BS .
BIOMETRICS, 2004, 60 (03) :651-660