Cargando…

Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice

With the genomic revolution and the era of targeted therapy, prognostic and predictive gene signatures are becoming increasingly important in clinical research. They are expected to assist prognosis assessment and therapeutic decision making. Notwithstanding, an evidence-based approach is needed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michiels, S., Ternès, N., Rotolo, F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27634691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw307
_version_ 1782485119149277184
author Michiels, S.
Ternès, N.
Rotolo, F.
author_facet Michiels, S.
Ternès, N.
Rotolo, F.
author_sort Michiels, S.
collection PubMed
description With the genomic revolution and the era of targeted therapy, prognostic and predictive gene signatures are becoming increasingly important in clinical research. They are expected to assist prognosis assessment and therapeutic decision making. Notwithstanding, an evidence-based approach is needed to bring gene signatures from the laboratory to clinical practice. In early breast cancer, multiple prognostic gene signatures are commercially available without having formally reached the highest levels of evidence-based criteria. We discuss specific concepts for developing and validating a prognostic signature and illustrate them with contemporary examples in breast cancer. When a prognostic signature has not been developed for predicting the magnitude of relative treatment benefit through an interaction effect, it may be wishful thinking to test its predictive value. We propose that new gene signatures be built specifically for predicting treatment effects for future patients and outline an approach for this using a cross-validation scheme in a standard phase III trial. Replication in an independent trial remains essential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5178139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51781392016-12-23 Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice Michiels, S. Ternès, N. Rotolo, F. Ann Oncol Special Articles With the genomic revolution and the era of targeted therapy, prognostic and predictive gene signatures are becoming increasingly important in clinical research. They are expected to assist prognosis assessment and therapeutic decision making. Notwithstanding, an evidence-based approach is needed to bring gene signatures from the laboratory to clinical practice. In early breast cancer, multiple prognostic gene signatures are commercially available without having formally reached the highest levels of evidence-based criteria. We discuss specific concepts for developing and validating a prognostic signature and illustrate them with contemporary examples in breast cancer. When a prognostic signature has not been developed for predicting the magnitude of relative treatment benefit through an interaction effect, it may be wishful thinking to test its predictive value. We propose that new gene signatures be built specifically for predicting treatment effects for future patients and outline an approach for this using a cross-validation scheme in a standard phase III trial. Replication in an independent trial remains essential. Oxford University Press 2016-12 2016-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5178139/ /pubmed/27634691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw307 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Special Articles
Michiels, S.
Ternès, N.
Rotolo, F.
Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title_full Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title_fullStr Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title_short Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
title_sort statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice
topic Special Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27634691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw307
work_keys_str_mv AT michielss statisticalcontroversiesinclinicalresearchprognosticgenesignaturesarenotyetusefulinclinicalpractice
AT ternesn statisticalcontroversiesinclinicalresearchprognosticgenesignaturesarenotyetusefulinclinicalpractice
AT rotolof statisticalcontroversiesinclinicalresearchprognosticgenesignaturesarenotyetusefulinclinicalpractice