An exploration into study design for biomarker identification: Issues and recommendations

Cancer Genomics and Proteomics

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 111-120

  Hall, Jacqueline A ^a   Brown, Robert ^a   Paul, Jim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer biomarkers; Review; Study design; Supervised clustering; Tumour profiling

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ALGORITHM; CANCER; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; GENE CLUSTER; GENOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MULTIGENE FAMILY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW;

EID: 34249333123     PISSN: 11096535     EISSN: 17906245     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Simon R et al: Pitfalls in the Use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(1): 14-18, 2003.
2. Hilsenbeck S, Clark G and McGuire W: Why do so many prognostic factors fail to pan out? Breast Cancer Res Treat 22(3): 197-206, 1992.
3. McShane LM et al: REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer 93(4): 387-391, 2005.
4. Altman D and Lyman G: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52: 289-303, 1998.
5. Paik S et al: Real-world performance of HER2 testing - national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(11): 852-854, 2002.
6. Hall J, Paul J and Brown R: Critical evaluation of p53 as a prognostic marker in ovarian cancer. Expert Rev Mol Med 2004: 1-20, 2004.
7. Chanock S and Wacholder S: One gene and one outcome? No way. Trends Mol Med 8(6): 266-269, 2002.
8. Paik S: Incorporating genomics into the cancer clinical trial process. Seminars in oncology 28(3): 305-309, 2001.
9. Oye RK and Shapiro MF: Reporting results from chemotherapy trials. Does response make a difference in patient survival? JAMA 252(19): 2722-2725, 1984.
10. Vasey PA et al: Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel- carboplatin versus paclitaxel-carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(22): 1682-1691, 2004.
11. Shipp MA et al: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma outcome prediction by gene-expression profiling and supervised machine learning. Nat Med 8(1): 68-74, 2002.
12. van 't Veer LJ et al: Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415(6871): 530-536, 2002.
13. Verduijn M et al: Dichotomization of ICU length of stay based on model calibration, in artificial intelligence in medicine. Springer: Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 67-76, 2005.
14. Farewell V, Tom BDM, and Royston P: The impact of dichotomization on the efficiency of testing for an interaction effect in exponential family models. J Am Stat Assoc 99(467): 822, 2004.
15. Bair E and Tibshirani R: Semi-supervised methods to predict patient survival from gene expression data. PLoS Biology 2(4): e108, 2004.
16. Ein-Dor L et al: Outcome signature genes in breast cancer: is there a unique set? Bioinformatics 21(2): 171-178, 2005.
17. Buyse M et al: Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17): 1183-1192, 2006.
18. Ein-Dor L, Zuk O and Domany E: Thousands of samples are needed to generate a robust gene list for predicting outcome in cancer. PNAS 103(15): 5923-5928, 2006.
19. Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W and Schumacher M: Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Stat Med 19: 441-452, 2000.
20. Vogelstein B, Lane D and Levine A: Surfing the p53 network. Nature 408: 307-310, 2000.
21. Lowe S et al: p53 status and the efficacy of cancer therapy in vivo. Science 266(5186): 807-810, 1994.
22. de Graeff P et al: Factors influencing p53 expression in ovarian cancer as a biomarker of clinical outcome in multicentre studies. Br J Cancer 95: 627-633, 2006.
23. Simon R: Supervised analysis when the number of candidate features (p) greatly exceeds the number of cases (n). Association of Computing Machinery, SIGKDD Explorations 5(2): 31-36, 2003.
24. Liu H, Li J and Wong L: Use of extreme patient samples for outcome prediction from gene expression data. Bioinformatics 21(16): 3377-3384, 2005.
25. Sorlie T et al: Distinct molecular mechanisms underlying clinically relevant subtypes of breast cancer: gene expression analyses across three different platforms. BMC Genomics 7(1): 127, 2006.
26. Schwartz DR et al: Gene expression in ovarian cancer reflects both morphology and biological behavior, distinguishing clear cell from other poor-prognosis ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res 62(16): 4722-4729, 2002.
27. Ouellet VM et al: Tissue array analysis of expression microarray candidates identifies markers associated with tumor grade and outcome in serous epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 119(3): 599-607, 2006.
28. Sotiriou C et al: Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(4): 262-272, 2006.
29. Katz E and Kattan M: How to judge a tumor marker. Nature Clin Practice Oncol 2: 482-483, 2005.
30. Simon R and Altman D: Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 69(6): 979-985, 1994.