Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK)

被引:1204
作者
McShane, LM
Altman, DG
Sauerbrei, W
Taube, SE
Gion, M
Clark, GM
机构
[1] NCI, Biometr Res Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] NCI, Canc Diag Program, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] Univ Oxford Wolfson Coll, Ctr Stat Med, Med Stat Grp, Oxford OX2 6UD, England
[4] Univ Freiburg Klinikum, Inst Med Biometrie & Med Informat, Freiburg, Germany
[5] Osped Civile Venezia, Ctr Reg Indicatori Biochim Tumore, Venice, Italy
[6] OSI Pharmaceut Inc, Boulder, CO USA
来源
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2005年 / 97卷 / 16期
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/dji237
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor 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 methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor 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 generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for 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.
引用
收藏
页码:1180 / 1184
页数:5
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
Altman D.G., 2008, SYST REV HLTH CARE M, V323, P228, DOI [10.1002/9780470693926.ch13, DOI 10.1002/9780470693926.CH13]
[2]   REVIEW OF SURVIVAL ANALYSES PUBLISHED IN CANCER JOURNALS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
DESTAVOLA, BL ;
LOVE, SB ;
STEPNIEWSKA, KA .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1995, 72 (02) :511-518
[3]   DANGERS OF USING OPTIMAL CUTPOINTS IN THE EVALUATION OF PROGNOSTIC FACTORS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
LAUSEN, B ;
SAUERBREI, W ;
SCHUMACHER, M .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1994, 86 (11) :829-835
[4]   Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer [J].
Altman, DG ;
Lyman, GH .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1998, 52 (1-3) :289-303
[5]   Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables [J].
Altman, DG .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7306) :224-228
[6]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[7]   2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: Clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology [J].
Bast, RC ;
Ravdin, P ;
Hayes, DF ;
Bates, S ;
Fritsche, H ;
Jessup, JM ;
Kemeny, N ;
Locker, GY ;
Mennel, RG ;
Somerfield, MR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 19 (06) :1865-1878
[8]   Biostatistics and tumor marker studies in breast cancer: Design, analysis and interpretation issues [J].
Biganzoli, E ;
Boracchi, P ;
Marubini, E .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MARKERS, 2003, 18 (01) :40-48
[9]   The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW ;
Lijmer, JG .
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 49 (01) :7-18
[10]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 49 (01) :1-6