Molecular epidemiology: New rules for new tools?

Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis

Volumn 600, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 3-11

  Merlo, Domenico Franco ^a   Sormani, Maria Pia ^b   Bruzzi, Paolo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Biological markers; Cancer research; Epidemiology

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER RISK; CARCINOGENESIS; GENETICS; HUMAN; MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EPIDEMIOLOGY, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 33747334038     PISSN: 00275107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2006.05.033     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Caporaso N. In: Gail M.H., and Benichou J. (Eds). Molecular Epidemiology, in Encyclopedia of Epidemiologic Methods (2000), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England 612-617
2. Foxman B., and Riley L. Molecular epidemiology: focus on infection. Am. J. Epidemiol. 153 (2001) 1135-1141
3. Perera F.P., and Weinstein I.B. Molecular epidemiology and carcinogen-DNA adduct detection: new approaches to studies of human cancer causation. J. Chronic Dis. 35 (1982) 581-600
4. Hulka B. Epidemiologic studies using biological markers: issues for epidemiologists. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 1 (1991) 13-19
5. In: Hulka B.S., Wilcosky T.C., and Griffith J.D. (Eds). Biological Markers in Epidemiology (1999), Oxford University Press, New York
6. In: Shulte P.A., and Perera F.P. (Eds). Molecular Epidemiology (1993), Academic Press, Inc.
7. Izzotti A., Neri M., Vecchio D., and Puntoni R. Molecular epidemiology in cancer research (Review). Int. J. Oncol. 11 (1997) 1053-1069
8. P. Toniolo, P. Boffetta, D.E.G. Shuker, N. Rothman, B. Hulka, N. Pierce (Eds.), Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publication No. 142, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 1997.
9. L. Gunn, M.T. Smith, Emerging biomarker technologies, in: P. Buffler, J. Rice, R. Baan, M. Bird, P. Boffetta (Eds.), Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis. Contribution of Molecular Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publication No. 157, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 2004, pp. 437-450.
10. Cole P., and MacMahon B. Oestrogen fractions during early reproductive life in the aetiology of breast cancer. Lancet 22;1 7595 (1969) 604-606
11. MacMahon B., Cole P., Brown J.B., Aoki K., Lin T.M., Morgan R.W., and Woo N.C. Urine oestrogen profiles of Asian and North American women. Int. J. Cancer 14 (1974) 161-167
12. Dickinson L.E., MacMahon B., Cole P., and Brown J.B. Oestrogen profiles of Oriental and Caucasian women in Hawaii. N. Engl. J. Med. 291 (1974) 1211-1213
13. MacMahon B., Cole P., Brown J.B., Paffenbarger R., Tricopoulos D., and Yen S. Urine estrogens, frequency of ovulation and breast cancer risk: case-control study in premenopausal women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 70 (1983) 247-250
14. P. Buffler, J. Rice, R. Baan, M. Bird, P. Boffetta (Eds.), Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis. Contribution of Molecular Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publication No. 157, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 2004.
15. H.J.A. Swenberg, Toxicological considerations in the application and interpretation of DNA adducts in epidemiological studies, in: P. Buffler, J. Rice, R. Baan, M. Bird, P. Boffetta (Eds.), Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis. Contribution of Molecular Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publication No. 157, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 2004.
16. WHO International Programme On Chemical Safety, Biomarkers and Risk Assessment: Concepts and Principles, Environmental Health Criteria 155 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
17. National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Definition Working Group, Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical research: definition and conceptual model, in: G.J. Downing (Ed.), Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints. Elseivier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
18. Committee on Biological Markers of the National Research Council, Biological markers in environmental health research, Environ. Health Perspect. 74 (1987) 3-9.
19. A.J. McMichael, A.J. Hall, The use of biological markers as predictive early-outcome measure in epidemiologic research, in: P. Toniolo, P. Boffetta, D.E.G. Shuker, N. Rothman, B. Hulka, N. Pierce (Eds.), Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology, IARC Scientific Publication Number 142, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 1997.
20. Aroson J.K. Editor's view: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 59 5 (2005) 491-494
21. Prentice R.L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8 (1989) 431-440
22. Schatzkin A., Friedman L.S., Schiffman M.H., and Dawsey S.M. Validation of intermediate end points in cancer research. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 82 (1990) 1746-1752
23. Fleming T.R., Prentice R., Pepe M.R., and Glidden D. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Stat. Med. 13 (1994) 955-968
24. Freedman L.S., Graudard B.I., and Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat. Med. 11 (1992) 167-178
25. Fleming T.R., and DeMets D.L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled?. Ann. Int. Med. 16 (1996) 605-613
26. Li Z., Meredith M.P., and Hoseny M.S. A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Stat. Med. 20 9 (2001) 3175-3188
27. Buyse M., and Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomised experiments. Biometrics 5 (1998) 1014-1029
28. Buyse M., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomised experiments. Biostatistics 1 (2000) 49-67
29. Hughes M.D. Evaluating surrogate endpoints. Control. Clin. Trials 23 (2002) 703-707
30. Molenberghs G., Buyse M., Geys H., et al. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomised trials. Control. Clin. Trials 23 (2002) 607-625
31. Groopman J.D., and Kensler T.B. The light at the end of the tunnel for chemically specific biomarkers: daylight or headlight?. Carcinogenesis 20 (1999) 1-11
32. Hernán M.A., Hernández-Dýaz S., and Robins J.M. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 15 (2004) 615-625
33. Lin D.Y., Fleming T.R., and DeGruttolla V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoints. Stat. Med. 16 (1997) 1515-1527
34. De Gruttola V.G., Fleming T., Lin D.Y., and Coombs R. Perspective: validating surrogate markers-are we being naive?. J. Infect. Dis. 175 (1997) 237-246
35. De Gruttola V.G., Clax P., DeMets D.L., Downing G.J., Ellenberg S.S., Friedman L., Gail M.H., Prentice R., Wittes J., and Zeger S.L. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop. Control. Clin. Trials 22 (2005) 485-502