Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design

Margaret S Pepe, Ziding Feng, Holly Janes, Patrick M Bossuyt, John D Potter, Margaret S Pepe, Ziding Feng, Holly Janes, Patrick M Bossuyt, John D Potter

Abstract

Research methods for biomarker evaluation lag behind those for evaluating therapeutic treatments. Although a phased approach to development of biomarkers exists and guidelines are available for reporting study results, a coherent and comprehensive set of guidelines for study design has not been delineated. We describe a nested case-control study design that involves prospective collection of specimens before outcome ascertainment from a study cohort that is relevant to the clinical application. The biomarker is assayed in a blinded fashion on specimens from randomly selected case patients and control subjects in the study cohort. We separately describe aspects of the design that relate to the clinical context, biomarker performance criteria, the biomarker test, and study size. The design can be applied to studies of biomarkers intended for use in disease diagnosis, screening, or prognosis. Common biases that pervade the biomarker research literature would be eliminated if these rigorous standards were followed.

References

    1. Ransohoff DF. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(12):1205–1219.
    1. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JW. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ. 2002;324(7335):477–480.
    1. Hernandez-Aguado I. The winding road towards evidence based diagnoses. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(5):323–325.
    1. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1905–1942.
    1. Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, Collette L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(9):2020–2027.
    1. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(14):1054–1061.
    1. Baker SG, Kramer BS, McIntosh M, Patterson BH, Shyr Y, Skates S. Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods. Clin Trials. 2006;3(1):43–56.
    1. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS. Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Stat Med. 1999;18(22):2987–3003.
    1. Janes H, Pepe MS. Matching in studies of classification accuracy: implications for analysis, efficiency, and assessment of incremental value. Biometrics. 2008;64(1):1–9.
    1. Janes H, Pepe M. Adjusting for covariates in studies of diagnostic, screening or prognostic markers: an old concept in a new setting. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(1):89–97.
    1. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(22):1692–1702.
    1. Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):1183–1192.
    1. Shaw P, Pepe M, Alonzo T, Etzioni R. Methods for assessing improvement in specificity when a biomarker is combined with a standard screening test. Stat Biopharm Res. In press.
    1. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2007.
    1. Simon R. Roadmap for developing and validating therapeutically relevant genomic classifiers. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(29):7332–7341.
    1. Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets D. Data Monitoring Committees in Clinical Trials. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2002.
    1. Pepe M, Feng Z, Longton G, Koopmeiners J. Estimating Sensitivity and Specificity from a Phase 2 Biomarker Study That Allows for Early Termination. UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series; 2007.
    1. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    1. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Srivastava S. Markers for early detection of cancer: statistical guidelines for nested case-control studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:4.
    1. Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J. Decision Making in Health and Medicine. Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
    1. Feng Z, Prentice R, Srivastava S. Research issues and strategies for genomic and proteomic biomarker discovery and validation: a statistical perspective. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5(6):709–719.
    1. Brenner DE, Normolle DP. Biomarkers for cancer risk, early detection, and prognosis: the validation conundrum. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(10):1918–1920.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren