Department of Surgery/Division of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Urol Oncol. 2010 Jul-Aug;28(4):389-400. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.02.011.
To critically review and illustrate current methodological and statistical considerations for bladder cancer biomarker discovery and evaluation.
Original, review, and methodological articles, and editorials were reviewed and summarized.
Biomarkers may be useful at multiple stages of bladder cancer management: early detection, diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and treatment; however, few novel biomarkers are currently used in clinical practice. The reasons for this disjunction are many and reflect the long and difficult pathway from candidate biomarker discovery to clinical assay, and the lack of coherent and comprehensive processes (pipelines) for biomarker development. Conceptually, the development of new biomarkers should be a process that is similar to therapeutic drug evaluation-a highly regulated process with carefully regulated phases from discovery to human applications. In a further effort to address the pervasive problem of inadequacies in the design, analysis, and reporting of biomarker prognostic studies, a set of reporting recommendations are discussed. For example, biomarkers should provide unique information that adds to known clinical and pathologic information. Conventional multivariable analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate improved prediction of outcomes. Predictive models, including or excluding any new putative biomarker, need to show clinically significant improvement of performance in order to claim any real benefit. Towards this end, proper model building, avoidance of overfitting, and external validation are crucial. In addition, it is important to choose appropriate performance measures dependent on outcome and prediction type and to avoid the use of cutpoints. Biomarkers providing a continuous score provide potentially more useful information than cutpoints since risk fits a continuum model. Combination of complementary and independent biomarkers is likely to better capture the biological potential of a tumor than any single biomarker. Finally, methods that incorporate clinical consequences such as decision curve analysis are crucial to the evaluation of biomarkers.
Attention to sound design and statistical practice should be delivered as early as possible and will help maximize the promise of biomarkers for patient care. Studies should include a measure of predictive accuracy and clinical decision-analysis. External validation using data from an independent cohort provides the strongest evidence that a model is valid. There is a need for adequately assessed clinical biomarkers in bladder cancer.
批判性地回顾和说明当前膀胱癌生物标志物发现和评估的方法学和统计学考虑因素。
综述了原始、综述和方法学文章以及社论。
生物标志物在膀胱癌管理的多个阶段可能有用:早期检测、诊断、分期、预后和治疗;然而,目前很少有新的生物标志物用于临床实践。造成这种脱节的原因有很多,反映了从候选生物标志物发现到临床检测的漫长而艰难的途径,以及缺乏连贯和全面的生物标志物开发流程(管道)。从概念上讲,新生物标志物的开发应该是一个类似于治疗药物评估的过程——一个高度监管的过程,从发现到人类应用都有严格监管的阶段。为了进一步解决生物标志物预后研究设计、分析和报告中普遍存在的不足问题,讨论了一组报告建议。例如,生物标志物应提供独特的信息,这些信息可增加已知的临床和病理信息。传统的多变量分析不足以证明对结果的预测有改善。需要展示任何新的假定生物标志物的预测模型,以显示在性能上有临床意义的改善,从而声称有任何实际的益处。为此,正确的模型构建、避免过度拟合和外部验证至关重要。此外,根据结局和预测类型选择适当的性能测量以及避免使用切点也很重要。提供连续评分的生物标志物比切点提供了更有用的信息,因为风险符合连续模型。互补和独立的生物标志物的组合可能比任何单一的生物标志物更好地捕捉肿瘤的生物学潜力。最后,将临床后果(如决策曲线分析)纳入的方法对于生物标志物的评估至关重要。
尽早关注合理的设计和统计实践将有助于最大限度地发挥生物标志物在患者护理中的潜力。研究应包括预测准确性和临床决策分析的衡量标准。使用独立队列的数据进行外部验证提供了模型有效的最强证据。膀胱癌需要有充分评估的临床生物标志物。