Dataset Information

Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.

Methods

Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study.

Results

Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy.

Conclusions

Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.

SUBMITTER: Huber F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4453620 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.

Huber F F Montani M M Sulser T T Jaggi R R Wild P P Moch H H Gevensleben H H Schmid M M Wyder S S Kristiansen G G

British journal of cancer 20141125 1

<h4>Background</h4>Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate progn ...[more]

PMID: 25422912

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:With India preparing for the next decennial Census in 2021, we compared the disability estimates and data collection methodology between the Census 2011 and the most recent population-level survey for India and its states, to highlight the issues to be addressed to improve robustness of the disability estimates in the upcoming Census. METHODS:Data from the Census 2011 and from two complementary nationally representative household surveys that covered all Indian states with the same methodology and survey instruments-the District-Level Household Survey-4 (DLHS-4, 2012-2013) and the Annual Health Surveys (AHS three rounds, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) were used. Data from DLHS-4 and AHS 2012-13 round were pooled to generate estimates for the year 2012-13. Data collection methodology between the sources was compared, including the review of definitions of each type of disability. The overall, mental, visual, hearing, speech, and movement disability rate (DR) per 100,000 population were compared between the sources for India and for each state, and the percent difference in the respective rates was calculated. We explored the reliability of these estimates comparing yearly data from the AHS for three successive rounds. RESULTS:Survey data were collected through proxy reporting, however, it is not entirely clear whether the data were proxy- or self-reported or a mix of both in the Census. The overall DR was 25.1% higher in the Census (2,242; 95% CI 2,241-2,243) than the survey (1,791; 95% CI 1,786-1,797) per 100,000 population, with the state-level difference ranging from -64% in Tamil Nadu to 107% in Sikkim state. Despite both sources using nearly similar definitions for overall disability and disability by type, the difference in DR was 125.5%, 54.2%, -25.7%, -19.7%, and 21.9% for hearing, speech, mental, movement, and visual DR, respectively. At the state-level, the difference in disability-specific estimates ranged from -84% to 450%. The extent of variations in the disability-specific estimates in AHS successive rounds ranged from -25% to 929% at the state-level. CONCLUSIONS:There is momentum globally towards building disability measurement that is consistent with the data required for monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals to ensure robust estimation of disability. The current estimates from the Census and surveys seem much lower than would be expected at the population level. We make recommendations that India needs to take serious note of in order to improve the validity and reliability of India's disability estimates.

Dataset Information

Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets