Cargando…
Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction
There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6649762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31360838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pky006 |
_version_ | 1783438046618714112 |
---|---|
author | Cuzick, Jack |
author_facet | Cuzick, Jack |
author_sort | Cuzick, Jack |
collection | PubMed |
description | There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this is also not true for biomarkers, especially when considering nontargeted therapies. Here I argue that for nontargeted treatments prognosis is often more important than interaction with treatment, because it is the absolute and not the relative benefit that matters, and when there is no treatment interaction, the same relative benefit translates into a larger absolute benefit for poor prognosis patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6649762 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66497622019-07-29 Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction Cuzick, Jack JNCI Cancer Spectr Brief Communication There is a somewhat confused belief that a biomarker must show an interaction effect with a treatment before it can be used to determine the need for such a treatment. This is rarely true for well-established clinical markers such as tumor size or regional lymph node involvement. In many cases, this is also not true for biomarkers, especially when considering nontargeted therapies. Here I argue that for nontargeted treatments prognosis is often more important than interaction with treatment, because it is the absolute and not the relative benefit that matters, and when there is no treatment interaction, the same relative benefit translates into a larger absolute benefit for poor prognosis patients. Oxford University Press 2018-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6649762/ /pubmed/31360838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pky006 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Brief Communication Cuzick, Jack Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title_full | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title_fullStr | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title_short | Prognosis vs Treatment Interaction |
title_sort | prognosis vs treatment interaction |
topic | Brief Communication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6649762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31360838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pky006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cuzickjack prognosisvstreatmentinteraction |