REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

被引:225
作者
McShane, LM [1 ]
Altman, DG [1 ]
Sauerbrei, W [1 ]
Taube, SE [1 ]
Gion, M [1 ]
Clark, GM [1 ]
机构
[1] NCI, Biometr Res Branch, DCTD, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
tumour markers; guidelines; NCI; EORTC; REMARK; prognostic;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejca.2005.03.032
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 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 methodologic 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 study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour 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 randomised trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, pre-planned 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. (C) 2005 Douglas G. Altman DSc, Gary M. Clark PhD, Dr. Massimo Gion, and Dr. Willi Sauerbrei. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1690 / 1696
页数:7
相关论文
共 44 条
[21]   A guide for reviewing submitted manuscripts (and indications for the design of translational research studies on biomarkers) [J].
Gion, M ;
Boracchi, P ;
Biganzoli, E ;
Daidone, MG .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MARKERS, 1999, 14 (03) :123-133
[22]  
Hall PA, 1999, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V35, P489
[23]   Issues and barriers to development of clinically useful tumor markers: A development pathway proposal [J].
Hammond, MEH ;
Taube, SE .
SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY, 2002, 29 (03) :213-221
[24]   Tumor marker utility grading system: A framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers [J].
Hayes, DF ;
Bast, RC ;
Desch, CE ;
Fritsche, H ;
Kemeny, NE ;
Jessup, JM ;
Locker, GY ;
MacDonald, JS ;
Mennel, RG ;
Norton, L ;
Ravdin, P ;
Taube, S ;
Winn, RJ .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1996, 88 (20) :1456-1466
[25]   WHY DO SO MANY PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FAIL TO PAN OUT [J].
HILSENBECK, SG ;
CLARK, GM ;
MCGUIRE, WL .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1992, 22 (03) :197-206
[26]   Potential for selection bias with tumor tissue retrieval in molecular epidemiology studies [J].
Hoppin, JA ;
Tolbert, PE ;
Taylor, JA ;
Schroeder, JC ;
Holly, EA .
ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (01) :1-6
[27]   BREAST-CANCER PROGNOSTIC FACTORS - EVALUATION GUIDELINES [J].
MCGUIRE, WL .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1991, 83 (03) :154-155
[28]  
McShane LM, 2000, CLIN CANCER RES, V6, P1854
[29]  
McShane LM, 2001, PROGNOSTIC FACTORS C, P37
[30]   Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer - A review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years [J].
Mirza, AN ;
Mirza, NQ ;
Vlastos, G ;
Singletary, SE .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2002, 235 (01) :10-26