The absolute benefit of a treatment varies between individuals depending on their prognosis before treatment and whether their response to the treatment varies from the overall relative risk reduction measured in clinical trials.
Based on these principles, biomarkers that can provide information about an individual's prognosis or predict his or her treatment response can be used to tailor treatment decisions to individual patients.
Many novel molecular biomarkers are currently available. Although there is evidence to show that some of these can improve patient outcomes through improved biomarker-guided treatment strategies, others are yet to be adequately evaluated.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can distinguish whether a biomarker provides prognostic or predictive information and assess whether using a biomarker to guide treatment improves patient outcomes.
Targeted RCTs can be used to demonstrate the efficacy of treatment in a restricted biomarker-defined population, and non-targeted RCTs can compare biomarker-guided versus conventional test-guided treatment strategies in broader populations.

References

1 Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 89–95. .
10.1067/mcp.2001.113989
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Lord S, Lee C, Simes RJ. The role of prognostic and predictive markers in cancer. Cancer Forum 2008; 32 (3): 139–142.
Google Scholar
3Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ 1995; 311: 1356–1359. .
10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1356
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 1456–1466. .
10.1093/jnci/88.20.1456
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Pepe MS. Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine. Stat Med 2005; 24: 3687–3696. .
10.1002/sim.2431
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Ransohof DF. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 1205–1219. .
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.020
Google Scholar
7Rose G, Shipley M. Plasma cholesterol concentration and death from coronary heart disease: 10 year results of the Whitehall study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293: 306–307. .
10.1136/bmj.293.6542.306
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 The Pooling Project Research Group. Relationship of blood pressure, serum cholesterol, smoking habit, relative weight and ECG abnormalities to incidence of major coronary events: final report of the pooling project. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 201–306. .
10.1016/0021-9681(78)90073-5
PubMed Google Scholar
9Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005; 366: 1267–1278. .
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67394-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Bonetti M, Gelber R. A graphical method to assess treatment–covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med 2000; 19: 2595–2609. .
10.1002/1097-0258(20001015)19:19<2595::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-M
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Royston P, Sauerbrei W. A new approach to modeling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2509–2525. .
10.1002/sim.1815
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 1687–1717. .
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2738–2746. .
10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2738
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Caplan R. Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1076–1087. .
10.1200/JCO.1988.6.7.1076
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet 2000; 356: 1844–1847. .
10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03246-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, Collette L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2020–2027. .
10.1200/JCO.2005.01.112
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Simon R, Maitournam A. Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 6759–6763. .
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0496
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Salmon DJ, Leyland-Jone B, Shak S. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 783–792. .
10.1056/NEJM200103153441101
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 721–728. .
10.1200/JCO.2007.15.1068
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Endocrine responsiveness and tailoring adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1054–1065. .
10.1093/jnci/94.14.1054
Google Scholar
21Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Buyse M, et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006; 3: 540–551. .
10.1038/ncponc0591
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1757–1765. .
10.1056/NEJMoa0804385
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 118–145. .
10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2775
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Paik S, Kim C, Wolmark N. HER2 status and benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1409–1411. .
10.1056/NEJMc0801440
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1626–1634. .
10.1200/JCO.2007.14.7116
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume190, Issue11

June 2009

Pages 631-636

Molecular biomarkers to individualise treatment: assessing the evidence

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Molecular biomarkers to individualise treatment: assessing the evidence

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information