REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

被引:1013
作者
McShane L.M. [1 ,6 ]
Altman D.G. [2 ]
Sauerbrei W. [3 ]
Taube S.E. [1 ]
Gion M. [4 ]
Clark G.M. [5 ]
机构
[1] US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
[2] Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College
[3] Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg
[4] Centro Regionale Indicatori Biochimici di Tumoure, Ospedale Civile
[5] OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boulder
[6] National Cancer Institute, Biometric Research Branch, DCTD, Bethesda, MD 20892-7434
关键词
EORTC; Guidelines; NCI; Prognostic; REMARK; Tumour marker;
D O I
10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour 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 methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour 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 generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned 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. © 2005 Cancer Research.
引用
收藏
页码:387 / 391
页数:4
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Altman D.G., Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables, Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-Analysis in Context, pp. 228-247, (2001)
  • [2] Altman D.G., Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables, BMJ, 323, pp. 224-228, (2001)
  • [3] Altman D.G., De Stavola B.L., Love S.B., Stepniewska K.A., Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals, Br J Cancer, 72, pp. 511-518, (1995)
  • [4] Altman D.G., Lausen B., Sauerbrei W., Schumacher M., Dangers of using 'optimal' cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors, J Natl Cancer Inst, 86, pp. 829-835, (1994)
  • [5] Altman D.G., Lyman G.H., Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 52, pp. 289-303, (1998)
  • [6] Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., Egger M., Davidoff F., Elbourne D., Gotzsche P.C., Lang T., The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration, Ann Intern Med, 134, pp. 663-694, (2001)
  • [7] Bast Jr. R.C., Ravdin P., Hayes D.F., Bates S., Fritsche Jr. H., Jessup J.M., Kemeny N., Locker G.Y., Mennel R.G., Somerfield M.R., 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, pp. 1865-1878, (2001)
  • [8] Biganzoli E., Boracchi P., Marubini E., Biostatistics and tumor marker studies in breast cancer: Design, analysis and interpretation issues, Int J Biol Markers, 18, pp. 40-48, (2003)
  • [9] Bossuyt P.M., Reitsma J.B., Bruns D.E., Gatsonis C.A., Glasziou P.P., Irwig L.M., Lijmer J.G., Moher D., Rennie D., De Vet H.C., Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, Clin Chem, 49, pp. 1-6, (2003)
  • [10] Bossuyt P.M., Reitsma J.B., Bruns D.E., Gatsonis C.A., Glasziou P.P., Irwig L.M., Moher D., Rennie D., De Vet H.C., Lijmer J.G., Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration, Clin Chem, 49, pp. 7-18, (2003)