Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration
High-throughput ?omics? technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24228635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-220 |
_version_ | 1782478653363322880 |
---|---|
author | McShane, Lisa M Cavenagh, Margaret M Lively, Tracy G Eberhard, David A Bigbee, William L Williams, P Mickey Mesirov, Jill P Polley, Mei-Yin C Kim, Kelly Y Tricoli, James V Taylor, Jeremy MG Shuman, Deborah J Simon, Richard M Doroshow, James H Conley, Barbara A |
author_facet | McShane, Lisa M Cavenagh, Margaret M Lively, Tracy G Eberhard, David A Bigbee, William L Williams, P Mickey Mesirov, Jill P Polley, Mei-Yin C Kim, Kelly Y Tricoli, James V Taylor, Jeremy MG Shuman, Deborah J Simon, Richard M Doroshow, James H Conley, Barbara A |
author_sort | McShane, Lisa M |
collection | PubMed |
description | High-throughput ?omics? technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3852338 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38523382013-12-19 Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration McShane, Lisa M Cavenagh, Margaret M Lively, Tracy G Eberhard, David A Bigbee, William L Williams, P Mickey Mesirov, Jill P Polley, Mei-Yin C Kim, Kelly Y Tricoli, James V Taylor, Jeremy MG Shuman, Deborah J Simon, Richard M Doroshow, James H Conley, Barbara A BMC Med Correspondence High-throughput ?omics? technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. BioMed Central 2013-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3852338/ /pubmed/24228635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-220 Text en Copyright © 2013 McShane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Correspondence McShane, Lisa M Cavenagh, Margaret M Lively, Tracy G Eberhard, David A Bigbee, William L Williams, P Mickey Mesirov, Jill P Polley, Mei-Yin C Kim, Kelly Y Tricoli, James V Taylor, Jeremy MG Shuman, Deborah J Simon, Richard M Doroshow, James H Conley, Barbara A Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title | Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title_full | Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title_fullStr | Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title_full_unstemmed | Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title_short | Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
title_sort | criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration |
topic | Correspondence |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24228635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-220 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcshanelisam criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT cavenaghmargaretm criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT livelytracyg criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT eberharddavida criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT bigbeewilliaml criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT williamspmickey criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT mesirovjillp criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT polleymeiyinc criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT kimkellyy criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT tricolijamesv criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT taylorjeremymg criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT shumandeborahj criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT simonrichardm criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT doroshowjamesh criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration AT conleybarbaraa criteriafortheuseofomicsbasedpredictorsinclinicaltrialsexplanationandelaboration |