Cargando…

Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recently published a task force report on the evaluation of the clinical utility of tumor biomarkers in oncology. In this report, common terminology and the use of levels of evidence scores to aid the evaluation of biomarker tests in oncology were pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berghoff, Anna Sophie, Stefanits, Harald, Heinzl, Harald, Preusser, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720693
http://dx.doi.org/10.5414/NP300511
_version_ 1782270995801833472
author Berghoff, Anna Sophie
Stefanits, Harald
Heinzl, Harald
Preusser, Matthias
author_facet Berghoff, Anna Sophie
Stefanits, Harald
Heinzl, Harald
Preusser, Matthias
author_sort Berghoff, Anna Sophie
collection PubMed
description The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recently published a task force report on the evaluation of the clinical utility of tumor biomarkers in oncology. In this report, common terminology and the use of levels of evidence scores to aid the evaluation of biomarker tests in oncology were proposed. Furthermore, the task force applied a level of evidence system to selected biomarkers of several cancer types. According to this system, the highest level of evidence, IA, is granted to a biomarker only if it has been evaluated in at least one adequately powered and specifically designed prospective controlled trial. For gliomas, only 1p/19q testing in oligodendroglial tumors was classified as IA by the NCCN task force. For all of the following biomarkers the present evidence level for clinical utility was regarded as lower than that of 1p/19q status: MGMT gene promoter methylation testing (glioblastoma), IDH mutation testing (diffusely growing gliomas), BRAF fusion testing (pilocytic astrocytoma) and CIMP testing (diffusely growing gliomas). The task force acknowledged that the exact application of levels of evidence needs further refinement. To our mind, the implementation of a brain tumor expert panel seems vital to evaluate the evidence levels of neurooncological biomarkers according to generally accepted criteria on a regular basis. Systematic identification of current research needs and widely accepted up-to-date recommendations for efficient biomarker application in everyday practice could be gained.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3663460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36634602013-07-24 Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers Berghoff, Anna Sophie Stefanits, Harald Heinzl, Harald Preusser, Matthias Clin Neuropathol Research Article The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recently published a task force report on the evaluation of the clinical utility of tumor biomarkers in oncology. In this report, common terminology and the use of levels of evidence scores to aid the evaluation of biomarker tests in oncology were proposed. Furthermore, the task force applied a level of evidence system to selected biomarkers of several cancer types. According to this system, the highest level of evidence, IA, is granted to a biomarker only if it has been evaluated in at least one adequately powered and specifically designed prospective controlled trial. For gliomas, only 1p/19q testing in oligodendroglial tumors was classified as IA by the NCCN task force. For all of the following biomarkers the present evidence level for clinical utility was regarded as lower than that of 1p/19q status: MGMT gene promoter methylation testing (glioblastoma), IDH mutation testing (diffusely growing gliomas), BRAF fusion testing (pilocytic astrocytoma) and CIMP testing (diffusely growing gliomas). The task force acknowledged that the exact application of levels of evidence needs further refinement. To our mind, the implementation of a brain tumor expert panel seems vital to evaluate the evidence levels of neurooncological biomarkers according to generally accepted criteria on a regular basis. Systematic identification of current research needs and widely accepted up-to-date recommendations for efficient biomarker application in everyday practice could be gained. Dustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle 2012 2012-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3663460/ /pubmed/22720693 http://dx.doi.org/10.5414/NP300511 Text en © Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Berghoff, Anna Sophie
Stefanits, Harald
Heinzl, Harald
Preusser, Matthias
Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title_full Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title_fullStr Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title_short Clinical Neuropathology Practice News 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
title_sort clinical neuropathology practice news 4-2012: levels of evidence for brain tumor biomarkers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22720693
http://dx.doi.org/10.5414/NP300511
work_keys_str_mv AT berghoffannasophie clinicalneuropathologypracticenews42012levelsofevidenceforbraintumorbiomarkers
AT stefanitsharald clinicalneuropathologypracticenews42012levelsofevidenceforbraintumorbiomarkers
AT heinzlharald clinicalneuropathologypracticenews42012levelsofevidenceforbraintumorbiomarkers
AT preussermatthias clinicalneuropathologypracticenews42012levelsofevidenceforbraintumorbiomarkers