Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Seminar articleStatistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer
Introduction
Biomarker research is an all encompassing term for investigation of biologic processes and their potential use in early detection, diagnosis, monitoring of disease, and treatment decision. Most biomarkers represent changes in proteins or genes associated with disease that can be measured. Since there are innumerable alterations associated with disease states, it is necessary to develop statistical tools to identify which changes are significant and which can be clinically useful.
The recent mapping of the human genome, together with advances in high-throughput genetic and proteomic technology, have led to an explosion of biological information and the identification of a plethora of candidate molecular biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Furthermore, work in proteomics is also improving our understanding of systems biology. As the proteome changes constantly with the state of the organism, biological variations that occur over time can easily be addressed. Proteomics therefore has the potential expected to discover new oncologic biomarkers that could help diagnose cancer at an early stage or establish tumor-specific profiles that could predict tumor aggressiveness [1]. High-throughput platforms for analysis of protein expression and functionality in clinical samples and protein microarrays have been developed. These array platforms provide a quantitative or semiquantitative means for measuring protein expression and also provide the ability to identify post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation. Their increasing use in health research will significantly help the rapid validation and therefore translation of the massive amounts of data generated by modern genomic and proteomic technologies, thereby fostering a new synergy between bench and bedside. This explosion of knowledge about the basic biological processes and the genetics of cancer has led to increasing optimism that this knowledge can be put to practical clinical use in the near future for individualized medicine [2], [3]. Indeed, important examples of translational approaches can already be found in the areas of drug discovery and development, disease diagnosis and classification, selection of therapeutic regimens for individual patients, and designing clinical trials. These are important developments but, as with any new approach, there is a danger of unwarranted enthusiasm and premature clinical application of laboratory results based on insufficient evidence. To carry out the translation of knowledge into practice with maximal efficiency and effectiveness, it is essential to conduct studies with appropriate designs and analyses based on sound statistical principles.
There is considerable evidence that contemporary biomarker research falls far short of using appropriate research design and statistical methods. For example, Vickers et al. reviewed a ‘snapshot’ sample of 129 studies to determine whether the statistical analyses used would allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the clinical value of the biomarkers studied. The authors found that the majority of articles regarding biomarkers for cancer focused on testing the null hypothesis of no association between the biomarker and cancer outcome with only a small minority (11%) reporting predictive accuracy. Not a single paper used a statistical method or study design that addressed whether use of the marker in practice would improve clinical outcome. Other authors have reported on different statistical problems in marker research, such as the correct application of statistical tests, multiple hypothesis testing, data-dependent choice of cutpoints, power, and missing data [4], [5], [6]. Finally, deficiencies in study design, representative at-risk population, definition of endpoints, standard prognostic factor data, or laboratory methods may also limit the conclusions of a study [7]. Given these pervasive problems with study design and data analysis and reporting, this article attempts to address some of the statistical considerations needed for appropriate biomarker discovery and evaluation with focus on bladder cancer.
Section snippets
What exactly is a biomarker? Refining the definition
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a biomarker is a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes or pharmaceutical responses to a therapeutic intervention [8], [9]. The term biomarker is now typically shorthand for a molecular biomarker. There is a wide range of variation in the complexity of biomarkers going from the simplest (hair color, blood pressure, or cholesterol levels) to more
Biomarker conundrum in bladder cancer
A PubMed Search on “bladder cancer” AND (“biomarker” OR “molecular marker”) in English language yielded 3,434 hits (accessed 12/25/09; Fig. 1). The number of articles published on bladder cancer biomarkers have increased steadily since 1980s, reaching close to 300 articles per year in 2009. Despite this plethora of biomarkers reported to be clinically “promising,” only one biomarker is routinely used by urologists—cytology [13]. Why are bladder cancer biomarkers not living up to their promise
The discovery-validation-implementation paradigm: A schema for biomarker development and evaluation
Conceptually, the development of new biomarkers should be a process that is similar to therapeutic drug evaluation. Drug development is a highly regulated process with carefully regulated phases from discovery to human applications. In 2002, the National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network developed a five phase approach to systematic discovery and evaluation of biomarkers [30], [31]. The phases of research are generally ordered according to the strength of evidence that each
Reporting of biomarker data
In an effort to address the pervasive problem of inadequacies in the design, analysis, and reporting of biomarker prognostic studies, a set of reporting recommendations, such as the REMARK, has been developed and adopted by many prominent journals (Fig. 3). The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting and to help readers judge the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply. Indeed, it provides a detailed description as to the minimum amount
Statistical consideration during early phases of biomarker discovery and validation
“Most people use statistics like a drunk uses a streetlight, for support instead of illumination,” Andrew Lang.
An issue that has received less attention is the degree to which research on biomarkers has made sufficient use of clinically relevant statistics, such as the assessment of predictive accuracy, decision-analysis, and/or experimental methodology. The fundamental idea behind the concept of personalized medicine is that it is possible to identify patterns of demographic, clinical,
Cutpoints for biomarker classification
Many biomarkers are measured on a continuous scale such as, for example, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), which varies from 0.1 ng/mL to over 100 ng/mL. A common inclination with continuous markers is to chose a cutpoint to distinguish positive from negative results, such as with 10 ng/mL for NMP22 [53].
There are numerous reasons to be suspicious of this practice. First, use of cutpoints makes no biologic sense, on the grounds that it is implausible that there exists a fixed threshold of a
Predictive tools
Traditionally, physician judgment has formed the basis for risk estimation, patient counseling, and decision making. However, clinicians' estimates are often biased due to both subjective and objective confounders [54], [55], [56], [57]. To obviate this problem and to obtain more accurate predictions, researchers have developed predictive tools that are based on statistical techniques [58]. Recently, predictive tools have been introduced to predict the outcome of interest for the individual
Perspectives
“Statistics can be made to prove anything—even the truth,” Author unknown.
Biomarkers have the potential to be used clinically to screen for, diagnose, or monitor the activity of diseases and to guide molecular targeted therapy or assess therapeutic response (Table 1). However, discovery experiments have often overemphasized the significance of novel biomarkers, and efforts to further credential such candidates have been rare. Open any journal today and you will find multiple articles on the
References (73)
- et al.
Search for biomarkers of aggressiveness in bladder cancer
Eur Urol
(2006) - et al.
Innovations in serum and urine markers in prostate cancer current European research in the P-Mark project
Eur Urol
(2005) - et al.
Biomarker discovery and validation: Technologies and integrative approaches
Trends Biotechnol
(2004) - et al.
Nomograms including nuclear matrix protein 22 for prediction of disease recurrence and progression in patients with Ta, T1, or CIS transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder
J Urol
(2005) - et al.
The International Bladder Cancer Bank: Proposal for a new study concept
Urol Oncol
(2004) - et al.
Persistent uroplakin expression in advanced urothelial carcinomas: Implications in urothelial tumor progression and clinical outcome
Hum Pathol
(2007) - et al.
Use of combined apoptosis biomarkers for prediction of bladder cancer recurrence and mortality after radical cystectomy
Lancet Oncol
(2007) Are biomarkers for bladder cancer beneficial?
J Urol
(2010)- et al.
Challenges of cancer biomarker profiling
Eur Urol
(2007) - et al.
P53 as a prognostic marker for bladder cancer: A meta-analysis and review
Lancet Oncol
(2005)