Skip to main content
Log in

REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  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 88:1456–1466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 19:1865–1878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schilsky RL, Taube SE (2002) Introduction: Tumor markers as clinical cancer tests—are we there yet? Semin Oncol 29:211–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGuire WL (1991) Breast cancer prognostic factors: evaluation guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:154–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fielding LP, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Freedman LS (1992) The future of prognostic factors in outcome prediction for patients with cancer. Cancer 70:2367–2377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burke HB, Henson DE (1993) Criteria for prognostic factors and for an enhanced prognostic system. Cancer 72:3131–3135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR (1993) The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 118:201–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 85:1206–1219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Simon R, Altman DG (1994) Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 69:979–985

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gasparini G (1998) Prognostic variables in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:321–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hall PA, Going JJ (1999) Predicting the future: a critical appraisal of cancer prognosis studies. Histopathology 35:489–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 12:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:470–477

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 113:675–682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 6:1854–1864

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 94:852–854

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 94:855–857

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG, De Stavola BL, Love SB, Stepniewska KA (1995) Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 72:511–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ (2002) Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress. Chest 122:1037–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 235:10–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 1191–1198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 39:19–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Burton A, Altman DG (2004) Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer 91:4–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 529–536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 10:4–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Altman DG, Lyman GH (1998) Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:289–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 14:123–133

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 228–247

    Google Scholar 

  29. Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323:224–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  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 49–56

    Google Scholar 

  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 18:40–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 289–333

  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 285:1987–1991

    Google Scholar 

  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 49:1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 86:829–835

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, McGuire WL (1992) Why do so many prognostic factors fail to pan out? Breast Cancer Res Treat 22:197–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 354:1896–1900

    Google Scholar 

  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 283:2008–2012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hammond ME, Taube SE (2002) Issues and barriers to development of clinically useful tumor markers: a development pathway proposal. Semin Oncol 29:213–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 134:663–694

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 49:7–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer for their support of the NCI-EORTC International Meetings on Cancer Diagnostics from which the idea for these guidelines originated. We thank the U.K. National Translational Cancer Research Network for financial support provided to D. G. Altman. Members of the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics are: Douglas G. Altman, D.Sc. (Co-chair), Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK; Lisa M. McShane, Ph.D. (Co-chair), Biometric Research Branch, U.S. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892; Gary M. Clark, Ph.D., OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Boulder, CO 80301; Jose Costa, M.D., Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT 06510-3202; Angelo Di Leo, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Oncology, Hospital of Prato, 59100 Prato, Italy; Massimo Gion, M.D., Centro Regionale Indicatori Biochimici di Tumore, Ospedale Civile, 30122 Venezia, Italy; Robert J. Mayer, M.D., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115; Willi Sauerbrei Ph.D., Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; Sheila E. Taube, Ph.D., Cancer Diagnosis Program, U.S. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. McShane.

Additional information

McShane, L.M., D.G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S.E. Taube, M. Gion, G.M. Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Reprinted from: British Journal of Cancer, 93(4): 387–391, 2005.

McShane, L.M., D.G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S.E. Taube, M. Gion, G.M. Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). European Journal of Cancer, 41: 1690–1696, 2005.

McShane, L.M., D.G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S.E. Taube, M. Gion, G.M. Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(36): 9067–9072, 2005.

McShane, L.M., D.G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S.E. Taube, M. Gion, G.M. Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97(16): 1180–1184, 2005.

McShane, L.M., D.G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S.E. Taube, M. Gion, G.M. Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nature Clinical Practice Oncology, 2(8): 416–422, 2005.

Copyright 2005.

With permission from

Douglas G. Altman DSc, Gary M. Clark, PhD, Dr. Massimo Gion, and Dr. Willi Sauerbrei;

Cancer Research UK and Nature Publishing Group. [British Journal of Cancer];

Oxford University Press [Journal of the National Cancer Institute]; Nature Publishing Group [Nature Clinical Practice Oncology].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McShane, L.M., Altman, D.G., Sauerbrei, W. et al. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100, 229–235 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9242-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9242-8

Keywords

Navigation