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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |