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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Cuzick, Jack
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