Leveraging biospecimen resources for discovery or validation of markers for early cancer detection

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 107, Issue 4, 2015, Pages

  Schully, Sheri D ^a   Carrick, Danielle M ^a   Mechanic, Leah E ^a   Srivastava, Sudhir ^a   Anderson, Garnet L ^b   Baron, John A ^c   Berg, Christine D ^d   Cullen, Jennifer ^e   Diamandis, Eleftherios P ^f   Doria Rose, V Paul ^a   Goddard, Katrina A B ^g   Hankinson, Susan E ^h   Kushi, Lawrence H ⁱ   Larson, Eric B ^j   McShane, Lisa M ^a   Schilsky, Richard L ^k   Shak, Steven ^l   Skates, Steven J ^m   Urban, Nicole ^b   Kramer, Barnett S ^a   Khoury, Muin J ^a,n   Ransohoff, David F ^c   more..

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Center for Prostate Disease Research   (United States)

^f MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^g CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

ⁱ DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^j GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^k AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY   (United States)

^l Massachusetts General Hospital ^*  (United States)

^m MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁿ NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIST; STUDY DESIGN; SYMPTOM; WORKSHOP; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES;

BLOOD SPECIMEN COLLECTION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84930718091     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv012     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ransohoff DF. Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(4):309-314.
2. Simon R. Roadmap for developing and validating therapeutically relevant genomic classifiers. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(29):7332-7341.
3. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1446-1452.
4. Ransohoff DF, Gourlay ML. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):698-704.
5. Diamandis EP. The failure of protein cancer biomarkers to reach the clinic: why, and what can be done to address the problem? BMC Med. 2012;10:87. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-8.
6. Diamandis EP. Biomarker validation is still the bottleneck in biomarker research. J Intern Med. 2012;272(6):620.
7. Micheel C, Nass SJ, Omenn GS, eds. Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC: Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials;Board on Health Care Services;Board on Health Sciences Policy;Institute of Medicine;2012.
8. McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Lively TG, et al. Criteria for the use of omicsbased predictors in clinical trials. Nature. 2013;502(7471):317-320.
9. McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science. 2014;343(6168):229.
10. Ransohoff DF. Cultivating cohort studies for observational translational research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(4):481-484.
11. Zhu CS, Pinsky PF, Cramer DW, et al. A framework for evaluating biomarkers for early detection: validation of biomarker panels for ovarian cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3):375-383.
12. Saldova R, Royle L, Radcliffe CM, et al. Ovarian cancer is associated with changes in glycosylation in both acute-phase proteins and IgG. Glycobiology. 2007;17(12):1344-1356.
13. Ye B, Cramer DW, Skates SJ, et al. Haptoglobin-alpha subunit as potential serum biomarker in ovarian cancer: identification and characterization using proteomic profiling and mass spectrometry. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(8): 2904-2911.
14. Ransohoff DF. Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(2):142-149.
15. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):40-44.
16. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1-W12.
17. Andre F, McShane LM, Michiels S, et al. Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(3):171-176.
18. McShane LM, Hayes DF. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4223-4232.
19. Rundle A, Ahsan H, Vineis P. Better cancer biomarker discovery through better study design. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42(12):1350-1359.
20. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, Bossuyt PM, Potter JD. Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(20):1432-1438.
21. Ransohoff DF. The process to discover and develop biomarkers for cancer: a work in progress. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(20):1419-1420.
22. Taguchi A, Politi K, Pitteri SJ, et al. Lung cancer signatures in plasma based on proteome profiling of mouse tumor models. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(3):289-299.
23. Ransohoff DF. Cultivating cohort studies for observational translational research. Cancer EpidemiolBiomarkers Prev. 2013;22(4):481-484.
24. Pinsky PF, Zhu C, Skates SJ, et al. Potential effect of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) on the mortality outcome of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(9):2127-2133.
25. Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, et al. Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(1): 49-57.
26. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):327-340.
27. Skates SJ, Menon U, MacDonald N, et al. Calculation of the Risk of Ovarian Cancer From Serial CA-125 Values for Preclinical Detection in Postmenopausal Women. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(10 Suppl):206-210.
28. Skates SJ;Pauler DK;Jacobs IJ. Screening based on the risk of cancer calculation from Bayesian hierarchical change-point and mixture models of longitudinal markers. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96(454):429-439.
29. Lu KH, Skates S, Hernandez MA, et al. A 2-stage ovarian cancer screening strategy using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) identifies earlystage incident cancers and demonstrates high positive predictive value. Cancer. 2013;119(19):3454-61.
30. Drescher CW, Shah C, Thorpe J, et al. A Longitudinal Screening Algorithm that Incorporates Change Over Time in CA125 Levels Identifies Ovarian Cancer Earlier than a Single Threshold Rule. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(3):387-392.
31. Vaught JB, Caboux E, Hainaut P. International efforts to develop biospecimen best practices. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(4):912-915.
32. Weil CJ, Mechanic LE, Green T, et al. NCI think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic"data. Genet Med. 2013;15(12):997-1003.