Behrens T, Bonberg N, Casjens S, Pesch B, Brüning T
Protein research Unit Ruhr within Europe (PURE), Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany; Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance (IPA), Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 Jan;1844(1 Pt A):145-55. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.07.018. Epub 2013 Aug 9.
Technical advances to analyze biological markers have generated a plethora of promising new marker candidates for early detection of cancer. However, in subsequent analyses only few could be successfully validated as being predictive, clinically useful, or effective. This failure is partially due to rapid publication of results that were detected in early stages of biomarker research. Methodological considerations are a major concern when carrying out molecular epidemiological studies of diagnostic markers to avoid errors that increase the potential for bias. Although guidelines for conducting studies and reporting of results have been published to improve the quality of marker studies, their planning and execution still need to be improved. We will discuss different sources of bias in study design, handling of specimens, and statistical analysis to illustrate possible pitfalls associated with marker research, and present legal, ethical, and technical considerations associated with storage and handling of specimens. This article presents a guide to epidemiological standards in marker research using bladder cancer as an example. Because of the possibility to detect early cancer stages due to leakage of molecular markers from the target organ or exfoliation of tumor cells into the urine, bladder cancer is particularly useful to study diagnostic markers. To improve the overall quality of marker research, future developments should focus on networks of studies and tissue banks according to uniform legal, ethical, methodological, and technical standards. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Computational Proteomics in the Post-Identification Era. Guest Editors: Martin Eisenacher and Christian Stephan.
分析生物标志物的技术进步已产生了大量有望用于癌症早期检测的新标志物候选物。然而,在后续分析中,只有少数能够成功验证为具有预测性、临床实用性或有效性。这种失败部分归因于生物标志物研究早期阶段所检测结果的快速发表。在开展诊断标志物的分子流行病学研究时,方法学考量是一个主要关注点,以避免增加偏差可能性的错误。尽管已发布了关于开展研究和报告结果的指南以提高标志物研究的质量,但其规划和执行仍需改进。我们将讨论研究设计、样本处理和统计分析中的不同偏差来源,以说明与标志物研究相关的可能陷阱,并介绍与样本存储和处理相关的法律、伦理和技术考量。本文以膀胱癌为例,介绍了标志物研究中的流行病学标准指南。由于分子标志物从靶器官泄漏或肿瘤细胞脱落到尿液中而有可能检测到癌症早期阶段,膀胱癌对于研究诊断标志物特别有用。为提高标志物研究的整体质量,未来的发展应根据统一的法律、伦理、方法学和技术标准,聚焦于研究网络和组织库。本文是名为:鉴定后时代的计算蛋白质组学的特刊的一部分。客座编辑:Martin Eisenacher和Christian Stephan。