Pesch B, Brüning T, Johnen G, Casjens S, Bonberg N, Taeger D, Müller A, Weber D G, Behrens T
Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance (IPA), Ruhr University Bochum, Germany.
Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance (IPA), Ruhr University Bochum, Germany; Protein Research Unit Ruhr within Europe (PURE), Ruhr University Bochum, Germany.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 May;1844(5):874-83. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.12.007. Epub 2013 Dec 17.
This article describes the principles of marker research with prospective studies along with examples for diagnostic tumor markers. A plethora of biomarkers have been claimed as useful for the early detection of cancer. However, disappointingly few biomarkers were approved for the detection of unrecognized disease, and even approved markers may lack a sound validation phase. Prospective studies aimed at the early detection of cancer are costly and long-lasting and therefore the bottleneck in marker research. They enroll a large number of clinically asymptomatic subjects and follow-up on incident cases. As invasive procedures cannot be applied to collect tissue samples from the target organ, biomarkers can only be determined in easily accessible body fluids. Marker levels increase during cancer development, with samples collected closer to the occurrence of symptoms or a clinical diagnosis being more informative than earlier samples. Only prospective designs allow the serial collection of pre-diagnostic samples. Their storage in a biobank upgrades cohort studies to serve for both, marker discovery and validation. Population-based cohort studies, which may collect a wealth of data, are commonly conducted with just one baseline investigation lacking serial samples. However, they can provide valuable information about factors that influence the marker level. Screening programs can be employed to archive serial samples but require significant efforts to collect samples and auxiliary data for marker research. Randomized controlled trials have the highest level of evidence in assessing a biomarker's benefit against usual care and present the most stringent design for the validation of promising markers as well as for the discovery of new markers. In summary, all kinds of prospective studies can benefit from a biobank as they can serve as a platform for biomarker research. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Biomarkers: A Proteomic Challenge.
本文介绍了前瞻性研究中标志物研究的原理以及诊断性肿瘤标志物的实例。大量生物标志物被宣称可用于癌症的早期检测。然而,令人失望的是,仅有极少数生物标志物被批准用于检测未被识别的疾病,甚至已获批准的标志物可能也缺乏完善的验证阶段。旨在早期检测癌症的前瞻性研究成本高昂且耗时长久,因此成为标志物研究的瓶颈。这类研究纳入大量临床无症状的受试者,并对新发病例进行随访。由于无法采用侵入性操作从靶器官采集组织样本,生物标志物只能在易于获取的体液中测定。在癌症发展过程中,标志物水平会升高,相较于早期样本,采集时间更接近症状出现或临床诊断时的样本信息量更大。只有前瞻性设计允许对诊断前样本进行系列采集。将这些样本存储于生物样本库可提升队列研究的价值,使其既能用于标志物发现,也能用于标志物验证。基于人群的队列研究通常仅进行一次基线调查,缺乏系列样本,尽管可能收集到大量数据,但仍可为影响标志物水平的因素提供有价值的信息。筛查项目可用于存档系列样本,但需要付出巨大努力来收集样本及用于标志物研究的辅助数据。随机对照试验在评估生物标志物相对于常规治疗的益处时具有最高级别的证据,并且为验证有前景的标志物以及发现新标志物提供了最为严格的设计。总之,各类前瞻性研究都可受益于生物样本库,因为它能作为生物标志物研究的平台。本文是名为“生物标志物:蛋白质组学挑战”的特刊的一部分。