Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 100, Issue 2, pp 229–235 | Cite as

REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

  • Lisa M. McShane
  • Douglas G. Altman
  • Willi Sauerbrei
  • Sheila E. Taube
  • Massimo Gion
  • Gary M. Clark
Letter to the Editor

Abstract

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, pre-planned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Keywords

Tumor markers Guidelines NCI EORTC REMARK Prognostic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, Fritsche H Jr, Kemeny NE, Jessup JM et al (1996) Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1456–1466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bast RC Jr, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, Bates S, Fritsche H Jr, Jessup JM et al for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Tumor Markers Expert Panel (2001). 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 19:1865–1878PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schilsky RL, Taube SE (2002) Introduction: Tumor markers as clinical cancer tests—are we there yet? Semin Oncol 29:211–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGuire WL (1991) Breast cancer prognostic factors: evaluation guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:154–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fielding LP, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Freedman LS (1992) The future of prognostic factors in outcome prediction for patients with cancer. Cancer 70:2367–2377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burke HB, Henson DE (1993) Criteria for prognostic factors and for an enhanced prognostic system. Cancer 72:3131–3135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR (1993) The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 118:201–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gasparini G, Pozza F, Harris AL (1993) Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognostic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1206–1219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon R, Altman DG (1994) Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 69:979–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gasparini G (1998) Prognostic variables in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:321–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall PA, Going JJ (1999) Predicting the future: a critical appraisal of cancer prognosis studies. Histopathology 35:489–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoppin JA, Tolbert PE, Taylor JA, Schroeder JC, Holly EA (2002) Potential for selection bias with tumor tissue retrieval in molecular epidemiology studies. Ann Epidemiol 12:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thor AD, Liu S, Moore DH II, Edgerton SM (1999) Comparison of mitotic index, in vitro bromodeoxyuridine labeling, and MIB-1 assays to quantitate proliferation in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:470–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gancberg D, Lespagnard L, Rouas G, Paesmans M, Piccart M, DiLeo A et al (2000) Sensitivity of HER-2/neu antibodies in archival tissue samples of invasive breast carcinomas. Correlation with oncogene amplification in 160 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 113:675–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McShane LM, Aamodt R Cordon-Cardo C, Cote R, Faraggi D, Fradet Y et al and the National Cancer Institute Bladder Tumor Marker Network (2000). Reproducibility of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder tumors. Clin Cancer Res 6:1854–1864PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, Romond E, Hiller W, Park K et al (2002) Real-world performance of HER2 testing—National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:852–854PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB, Davidson NE, Martino S, Kaufman PA et al (2002) Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:855–857PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Altman DG, De Stavola BL, Love SB, Stepniewska KA (1995) Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 72:511–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ (2002) Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress. Chest 122:1037–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mirza AN, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Singletary SE (2002) Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years. Ann Surg 235:10–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Jones DR, Heney D et al (2003) Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer 88: 1191–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riley RD, Burchill SA, Abrams KR, Heney D, Sutton AJ, Jones DR et al (2003) A systematic review of molecular and biological markers in tumours of the Ewing’s sarcoma family. Eur J Cancer 39:19–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burton A, Altman DG (2004) Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer 91:4–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popat S, Matakidou A, Houlston RS (2004) Thymidylate synthase expression and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 22: 529–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riley RD, Heney D, Jones DR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Abrams KR et al (2004) A systematic review of molecular and biological tumor markers in neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:4–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Altman DG, Lyman GH (1998) Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:289–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gion M, Boracchi P, Biganzoli E, Daidone MG (1999) A guide for reviewing submitted manuscripts (and indications for the design of translational research studies on biomarkers). Int J Biol Markers 14:123–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care. Meta−analysis in context. 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London pp 228–247Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323:224–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McShane LM, Simon R (2001) Statistical methods for the analysis of prognostic factor studies. In: Gospodarowicz MK, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, O’Sullivan B, Sobin LH, Wittekind Ch (eds) Prognostic factors in cancer. 2nd edn. Wiley-Liss, New York pp 37–48Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simon R (2001) Evaluating prognostic factor studies. In: Gospodarowicz MK, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, O’Sullivan B, Sobin LH, Wittekind Ch (eds) Prognostic factors in cancer. 2nd edn. Wiley-Liss, New York pp 49–56Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biganzoli E, Boracchi P, Marubini E (2003) Biostatistics and tumor marker studies in breast cancer: design, analysis and interpretation issues. Int J Biol Markers 18:40–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schumacher M, Hollander N, Schwarzer G, Sauerbrei W (2006) Prognostic factor studies. In: Crowley J, Ankerst DP (eds) Handbook of statistics in clinical oncology. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, pp 289–333Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D for the CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem 49:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M (1994) Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:829–835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, McGuire WL (1992) Why do so many prognostic factors fail to pan out? Breast Cancer Res Treat 22:197–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D for the QUOROM Group (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hammond ME, Taube SE (2002) Issues and barriers to development of clinically useful tumor markers: a development pathway proposal. Semin Oncol 29:213–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D et al (2001) for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al (2003) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 49:7–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa M. McShane
    • 1
  • Douglas G. Altman
    • 2
  • Willi Sauerbrei
    • 3
  • Sheila E. Taube
    • 4
  • Massimo Gion
    • 5
  • Gary M. Clark
    • 6
  1. 1.Biometric Research Branch, DCTDNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Cancer for Statistics in MedicineWolfson CollegeOxfordUK
  3. 3.Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische InformatikUniversitaetsklinikum FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Cancer Diagnosis ProgramNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  5. 5.Centro Regionale Indicatori Biochimici di TumoreOspedale CivileVeneziaItaly
  6. 6.OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.BoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations