MULTIPLE TUMOR MARKER ANALYSIS IN A PROSTATE CLINICAL TRIAL POPULATION

1999 ◽  
pp. 336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth H Hammond ◽  
David J Grignon ◽  
Jiandong Lu ◽  
Miljenko V Pilepich ◽  
John B Mesic ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16524-e16524
Author(s):  
Rahber Thariani ◽  
David K Blough ◽  
William Barlow ◽  
Norah Lynn Henry ◽  
Julie Gralow ◽  
...  

e16524 Background: Despite not being recommended by clinical guidelines, the tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)15-3, and CA 27.29 are used by some clinicians to screen for increased risk of breast cancer recurrence. Although additional research may be warranted to evaluate the benefits and risks of breast cancer tumor marker tests, clinical trials would likely need to involve thousands of women and would take many years to complete. We conducted an analysis to assess the societal value of a prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) for breast tumor marker testing in routine follow-up of high-risk, stage II-III breast cancer survivors Methods: We used value of information techniques to assess the benefits of reducing uncertainty of using breast cancer tumor markers. We developed a decision-analytic model of biomarker testing in addition to standard surveillance at follow-up appointments every 3-6 months for five years. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) was assessed over a range of trial sizes and assumptions. Results: The overall value of research for an RCT involving 9,000 women was $166 million (EVSI). The value of improved information characterizing the survival impact of tumor markers was $81 million, quality-of-life $38 million, and test performance $95 million. Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that substantial societal value may be gained by conducting a clinical trial evaluating the use of breast cancer tumor markers. The most important aspects of the trial in our analysis were information gained on survival improvements as well as quality-of-life parameters associated with testing and test sensitivity and specificity. Our analysis indicates that smaller randomized trials, as well as adding quality of life instruments to existing trials, retrospective, and observational trials can also generate valuable and relevant information.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13039-e13039
Author(s):  
J. R. Eckardt ◽  
A. W. DeMaggio ◽  
O. Peracha ◽  
A. Nemeth ◽  
S. Sarvepalli ◽  
...  

Nanoscale ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingying Zhong ◽  
xian Wang ◽  
Ruyan Zha ◽  
Chen Wang ◽  
Huijuan Zhang ◽  
...  

A single tumor marker may correspond to a variety of diseases, and a specific disease requires the joint detection of multiple tumor markers for improving the accuracy of diagnoses. An...


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. e22565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaochuan Wang ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
Liangqi Sun ◽  
Shuaiping Wang ◽  
Jing Nie ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Susanne Fuessel ◽  
Denise Sickert ◽  
Axel Meye ◽  
Ulrich Klenk ◽  
Uta Schmidt ◽  
...  

Bioanalysis ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (24) ◽  
pp. 3417-3435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Palchetti

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A50-A50
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Pacia ◽  
Xun Li ◽  
Ju Young Kim ◽  
Evelyn Diaz ◽  
Beiru Chen ◽  
...  

BackgroundMultiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry (mFIHC) enables simultaneous detection of multiple biomarkers on a single tissue section. Spatial patterns and differential expression of immune- and tumor cell biomarkers serve as powerful predictors of immunotherapies. In a recent meta-analyses of 8135 patients treated with PD1/L1 pathway blockers, mFIHC was found to provide highest predictive power (P<0.05) amongst commonly utilized biomarker modalities, namely, PD-L1 IHC, Tumor Mutation Burden and Gene Expression Profiling alone. [Lu et al., JAMA Oncol 2019]. As biomarkers in mFIHC assays are read by computer-aided algorithms, the role of pathologists in the digital workflow has been debated. Utilizing clinical cases representing multiple tumor indications, we illustrate the critical collaboration between pathologists (human intelligence, HI) and computer workflows (artificial intelligence, AI) required for accurate interpretation of mFIHC assays in cancer immunotherapy trials.MethodsIn our clinical trial laboratory, pathologists are involved in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phases of clinical trial sample testing. In the pre-analytical phase, pathologist(s) perform histological examination of H&E stained tissue sections to annotate and confirm tissue types, diagnosis, tissue integrity and acceptance (including viable tumor component), followed by determination of Region of Interest (ROI) for subsequent analysis by computerized programs. In the analytical phase, pathologists identify specific areas of biological and/or clinical interest within ROI (tumor, non-tumor, invasive margin, and tumor-stromal interphase) in the computer scans, as well as exclude ROI containing necrosis, hemorrhage, blood vessels, and autofluorescence. Those pathologist-selected images are then quantified by digital pathology software such as Automated QUantitative Analyses (AQUA®) technology. Finally, pathologists also provide interpretation and summarize findings relevant to the clinical study during the post-analytical phase.ResultsCase studies representing distinct malignancies, such as melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, illustrating the role of pathologists and especially in rescuing challenging cases and interpreting biomarkers scores from mFIHC assays will be presented.ConclusionsWith the advancement in technologies to detect increasing number of biomarkers in a single tissue section and accompanied growth of mFIHC assays in immuno-oncology studies, there is a clear transition from conventional pathology (HI) to computer-aided pathology (AI+HI) that will ultimately ensure greater accuracy, reproducibility and standardization of clinical trial testing, and enable approval of more effective therapies and better patient care.


2009 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. A-746
Author(s):  
Patrick Starlinger ◽  
Claudia Nemeth ◽  
Sebastian F. Schoppmann ◽  
Irene Kuehrer ◽  
Michael Gnant ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document