Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research (original) (raw)

• Ransohoff, D. F. Developing molecular biomarkers for cancer. Science 299, 1679–1680 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Stears, R. L., Martinsky, T. & Schena, M. Trends in microarray analysis. Nature Med. 9, 140–145 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Petricoin, E. F. et al. Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 359, 572–577 (2002).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Zhu, W. et al. Detection of cancer-specific markers amid massive mass spectral data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 14666–14671 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Li, J., Zhang, Z., Rosenzweig, J., Wang, Y. Y. & Chan, D. W. Proteomics and bioinformatics approaches for identification of serum biomarkers to detect breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 48, 1296–1304 (2002).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Adam, B. L. et al. Serum protein fingerprinting coupled with a pattern-matching algorithm distinguishes prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia and healthy men. Cancer Res. 62, 3609–3614 (2002).
  CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Petricoin, E. F. et al. Serum proteomic patterns for detection of prostate cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 1576–1578 (2002).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• FDA Press Office. Protein patterns may identify ovarian cancer [online], <http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00797.html> (2002).
• Marcus, A. Testing for ovarian cancer is on the way. Wall Street Journal (New York) D1, D2 (1 Oct 2002).
  Google Scholar
• Pollack, A. New cancer test stirs hope and concern. New York Times (New York) D1, D6 (3 Feb 2004).
  Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Letter to correlogic systems, Inc. [online], <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/letters/021804-correlogic.html> (2004).
• Food and Drug Administration. Letter to laboratory corporation of America [online], <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/letters/030204-labcorp.html> (2004).
• Food and Drug Administration. Letter to quest diagnostics [online], <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/letters/030204-quest.html> (2004).
• Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Society of gynecologic oncologists statement regarding OvaCheck [online], <http://www.sgo.org/images/pdfs/policy/OvaCheck_statement.pdf> (2004).
• Wagner, L. A test before its time? FDA stalls distribution process of proteomic test. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96, 500–501 (2004).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Garber, K. Debate rages over proteomic patterns. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96, 816–818 (2004).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Check, E. Running before we can walk? Nature 429, 496–497 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Diamandis, E. Analysis of serum proteomic patterns for early cancer diagnosis: drawing attention to potential problems. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96, 353–356 (2004).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S. & Coombes, K. R. Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics 20, 777–785 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Sorace, J. M. & Zhan, M. A data review and re-assessment of ovarian cancer serum proteomic profiling. BMC Bioinformatics 4, 24 (2003).
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Baggerly, K. A., Coombes, K. R. & Morris, J. S. Are the NCI/FDA ovarian proteomic data biased? A reply to 'producers and consumers'. Cancer Informatics (in the press).
• Baggerly, K. A., Edmonson, S. R., Morris, J. S. & Coombes, K. R. High-resolution serum proteomic patterns for ovarian cancer detection. Endo. Relat. Cancer 11, 583–584 (2004).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• van de Vijver, M. J. et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999–2009 (2002).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Huang, E. et al. Gene expression predictors of breast cancer outcomes. Lancet 361, 1590–1596 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ramaswamy, S. & Perou, C. M. DNA microarrays in breast cancer: the promise of personalised medicine. Lancet 361, 1576–1577 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1715–1717; author reply 1715–1717 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Marshall, E. Getting the noise out of gene arrays. Science 306, 630–631 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ambroise, C. & McLachlan, G. J. Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 6562–6566 (2002).
  Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Baggerly, K. A. et al. A comprehensive approach to the analysis of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight proteomics spectra from serum samples. Proteomics 3, 1667–1672 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Mehta, T., Tanik, M. & Allison, D. B. Towards sound epistemological foundations of statistical methods for high-dimensional biology. Nature Genet. 36, 943–947 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nature Rev. Cancer 4, 309–314 (2004).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Discovery-based research and fishing. Gastroenterology 125, 290 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Hulley, S. B. et al. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2001).
  Google Scholar
• Rothman, K. J. Modern Epidemiology (Little, Brown and Company, Boston/Toronto, 1986).
  Google Scholar
• Hennekens, C. H. & Buring, J. E. Epidemiology in Medicine (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1987).
  Google Scholar
• Taubes, G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 269, 164–169 (1995).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Research opportunity at the interface of molecular biology and clinical epidemiology. Gastroenterology 122, 1199 (2002).
  Article Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Evaluating discovery-based research: when biologic reasoning cannot work. Gastroenterology 127, 1028 (2004).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Coombes, R. C. et al. A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 1081–1092 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Altman, D. G. et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 134, 663–694 (2001).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• The case-control study: consensus and controversy. J. Chronic. Dis. 32, 1–144 (1979).
• Sackett, D. L. Bias in analytic research. J. Chronic. Dis. 32, 51–63 (1979).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Roos, N. P. et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 320, 1120–1124 (1989).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Greenfield, S. The state of outcome research: are we on target? N. Engl. J. Med. 320, 1142–1143 (1989).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Concato, J., Horwitz, R. I., Feinstein, A. R., Elmore, J. G. & Schiff, S. F. Problems of comorbidity in mortality after prostatectomy. JAMA 267, 1077–1082 (1992).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Iezzoni, L. I. et al. Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality? JAMA 267, 2197–2203 (1992).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Iezzoni, L. I. The risks of risk adjustment. JAMA 278, 1600–1607 (1997).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Hulley, S. et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA 280, 605–613 (1998).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Manson, J. E. et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 523–534 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Col, N. F. & Pauker, S. G. The discrepancy between observational studies and randomized trials of menopausal hormone therapy: did expectations shape experience? Ann. Intern. Med. 139, 923–929 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Rennie, D. How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276, 649 (1996).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Bossuyt, P. M. et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann. Intern. Med. 138, 40–44 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Bossuyt, P. M. et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 138, W1–12 (2003).
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ransohoff, D. F. Lessons from controversy: ovarian cancer screening and serum proteomics. J. Natl Cancer Inst. (in the press).
• Imperiale, T. F. et al. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2704–2714 (2004).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Prorok, P. C. et al. Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin. Trials 21, 273S–309S (2000).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Simon, R., Radmacher, M. D., Dobbin, K. & McShane, L. M. Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 14–18 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Ntzani, E. E. & Ioannidis, J. P. Predictive ability of DNA microarrays for cancer outcomes and correlates: an empirical assessment. Lancet 362, 1439–1444 (2003).
  Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D. & De Mets, D. L. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd edn (Springer, New York, 1998).
  Book Google Scholar
• Sullivan Pepe, M. et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1054–1061 (2001).
  Article Google Scholar