Search

In 2005, several experts in tumor biomarker research publishe the REporting recommendations for Tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) criteria. Coupled with the subsequent Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ) criteria, these initiatives provide a framework for transparently reporting of the methods of study conduct and analyses., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Liquid biopsy, particularly the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has demonstrated considerable promise for numerous clinical intended uses. Successful validation and commercialization of novel ctDNA tests have the potential to improve the outcomes of patients with cancer. The goal of the Blood Profiling Atlas Consortium (BloodPAC) is to accelerate the development and validation of liquid biopsy assays that will be introduced into the clinic. To accomplish this goal, the BloodPAC conducts research in the following areas: Data Collection and Analysis within the BloodPAC Data Commons; Preanalytical Variables; Analytical Variables; Patient Context Variables; and Reimbursement. In this document, the BloodPAC's Analytical Variables Working Group (AV WG) attempts to define a set of generic analytical validation protocols tailored for ctDNA-based Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) assays. Analytical validation of ctDNA assays poses several unique challenges that primarily arise from the fact that very few tumor-derived DNA molecules may be present in circulation relative to the amount of nontumor-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA). These challenges include the exquisite level of sensitivity and specificity needed to detect ctDNA, the potential for false negatives in detecting these rare molecules, and the increased reliance on contrived samples to attain sufficient ctDNA for analytical validation. By addressing these unique challenges, the BloodPAC hopes to expedite sponsors' presubmission discussions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the protocols presented herein. By sharing best practices with the broader community, this work may also save the time and capacity of FDA reviewers through increased efficiency., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020.)

In recent years, cancer immunotherapy has emerged as a highly promising approach to treat patients with cancer, as the patient's own immune system is harnessed to attack cancer cells. However, the application of these approaches is still limited to a minority of patients with cancer and it is difficult to predict which patients will derive the greatest clinical benefit.One of the challenges faced by the biomedical community in the search of more effective biomarkers is the fact that translational research efforts involve collecting and accessing data at many different levels: from the type of material examined (e.g., cell line, animal models, clinical samples) to multiple data type (e.g., pharmacodynamic markers, genetic sequencing data) to the scale of a study (e.g., small preclinical study, moderate retrospective study on stored specimen sets, clinical trials with large cohorts).This chapter reviews several publicly available bioinformatics tools and data resources for high throughput molecular analyses applied to a range of data types, including those generated from microarray, whole-exome sequencing (WES), RNA-seq, DNA copy number, and DNA methylation assays, that are extensively used for integrative multidimensional data analysis and visualization.

Aims: The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections., Methods and Results: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER + breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot-spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799-0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI ≥ 0.8), while the ICC for the hot-spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74-0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot-spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot-spot methods, respectively., Conclusions: The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. The time taken for scoring by either method is practical using counting software we are making publicly available. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the reproducibility between laboratories further., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has potential prognostic, predictive, and monitoring roles in breast cancer. Unacceptable between-laboratory variability has limited its clinical value. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group investigated whether Ki67 immunohistochemistry can be analytically validated and standardized across laboratories using automated machine-based scoring. Sets of pre-stained core-cut biopsy sections of 30 breast tumors were circulated to 14 laboratories for scanning and automated assessment of the average and maximum percentage of tumor cells positive for Ki67. Seven unique scanners and 10 software platforms were involved in this study. Pre-specified analyses included evaluation of reproducibility between all laboratories (primary) as well as among those using scanners from a single vendor (secondary). The primary reproducibility metric was intraclass correlation coefficient between laboratories, with success considered to be intraclass correlation coefficient >0.80. Intraclass correlation coefficient for automated average scores across 16 operators was 0.83 (95% credible interval: 0.73-0.91) and intraclass correlation coefficient for maximum scores across 10 operators was 0.63 (95% credible interval: 0.44-0.80). For the laboratories using scanners from a single vendor (8 score sets), intraclass correlation coefficient for average automated scores was 0.89 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.96), which was similar to the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.93) achieved using these same slides in a prior visual-reading reproducibility study. Automated machine assessment of average Ki67 has the potential to achieve between-laboratory reproducibility similar to that for a rigorously standardized pathologist-based visual assessment of Ki67. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient was worse for maximum compared to average scoring methods, suggesting that maximum score methods may be suboptimal for consistent measurement of proliferation. Automated average scoring methods show promise for assessment of Ki67 scoring, but requires further standardization and subsequent clinical validation.

Purpose.—: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline., Methods.—: Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations., Recommendations.—: Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in >10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥2.0; average HER2 copy number <4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥4.0 and <6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

Lymphoid malignancies are a heterogeneous group of tumors that have distinctive clinical and biological behaviors. The increasing prevalence of disease reflects both treatment advances and the fact that some of these tumors are indolent. The ability to determine treatment needs at diagnosis remains problematic for some of the tumors, such as in follicular lymphomas. Major clinical advances will likely depend on precision oncology that will enable identification of specific disease entities, prognostic determination at diagnosis, and identification of precise therapeutic targets and essential pathways. However, refinement in diagnostic evaluation is an evolving science. The ability to determine prognosis at diagnosis is variable, and for many of the lymphoid malignancies prognosis can only be made after initial treatment. Clinical trials that aim to evaluate specific features of these diseases are required in order to advance clinical practice that meaningfully addresses this important public health challenge. Herein, we describe the process and general recommendation from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials planning meeting in November 2014 to address clinical trial design and biomarker proposals in the context of NCI-supported lymphoma clinical trials in the National Clinical Trials Network., (Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Purpose: To provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer., Methods: A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations., Results: The literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide choice of specific treatments or regimens., Recommendations: In addition to estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the panel found sufficient evidence of clinical utility for the biomarker assays Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50, Breast Cancer Index, and urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in specific subgroups of breast cancer. No biomarker except for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was found to guide choices of specific treatment regimens. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Developing biomarkers that can predict whether patients are likely to benefit from an intervention is a pressing objective in many areas of medicine. Recent guidance documents have recommended that the accuracy of predictive biomarkers, ie, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, should be assessed. We clarify the meanings of these entities for predictive markers and demonstrate that generally they cannot be estimated from data without making strong untestable assumptions. Language suggesting that predictive biomarkers can identify patients who benefit from an intervention is also widespread. We show that in general one cannot estimate the chance that a patient will benefit from treatment. We recommend instead that predictive biomarkers be evaluated with respect to their ability to predict clinical outcomes among patients treated and among patients receiving standard of care, and the population impact of treatment rules based on those predictions. Ideally these entities are estimated from a randomized trial comparing the experimental intervention with standard of care., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Although an important biomarker in breast cancer, Ki67 lacks scoring standardization, which has limited its clinical use. Our previous study found variability when laboratories used their own scoring methods on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. In this current study, 16 laboratories from eight countries calibrated to a specific Ki67 scoring method and then scored 50 centrally MIB-1 stained tissue microarray cases. Simple instructions prescribed scoring pattern and staining thresholds for determination of the percentage of stained tumor cells. To calibrate, laboratories scored 18 'training' and 'test' web-based images. Software tracked object selection and scoring. Success for the calibration was prespecified as Root Mean Square Error of scores compared with reference <0.6 and Maximum Absolute Deviation from reference <1.0 (log2-transformed data). Prespecified success criteria for tissue microarray scoring required intraclass correlation significantly >0.70 but aiming for observed intraclass correlation ≥0.90. Laboratory performance showed non-significant but promising trends of improvement through the calibration exercise (mean Root Mean Square Error decreased from 0.6 to 0.4, Maximum Absolute Deviation from 1.6 to 0.9; paired t-test: P=0.07 for Root Mean Square Error, 0.06 for Maximum Absolute Deviation). For tissue microarray scoring, the intraclass correlation estimate was 0.94 (95% credible interval: 0.90-0.97), markedly and significantly >0.70, the prespecified minimum target for success. Some discrepancies persisted, including around clinically relevant cutoffs. After calibrating to a common scoring method via a web-based tool, laboratories can achieve high inter-laboratory reproducibility in Ki67 scoring on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. Although these data are potentially encouraging, suggesting that it may be possible to standardize scoring of Ki67 among pathology laboratories, clinically important discrepancies persist. Before this biomarker could be recommended for clinical use, future research will need to extend this approach to biopsies and whole sections, account for staining variability, and link to outcomes.

Validation of early detection cancer biomarkers has proven to be disappointing when initial promising claims have often not been reproducible in diagnostic samples or did not extend to prediagnostic samples. The previously reported lack of rigorous internal validity (systematic differences between compared groups) and external validity (lack of generalizability beyond compared groups) may be effectively addressed by utilizing blood specimens and data collected within well-conducted cohort studies. Cohort studies with prediagnostic specimens (eg, blood specimens collected prior to development of clinical symptoms) and clinical data have recently been used to assess the validity of some early detection biomarkers. With this background, the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) and the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a joint workshop in August 2013. The goal was to advance early detection cancer research by considering how the infrastructure of cohort studies that already exist or are being developed might be leveraged to include appropriate blood specimens, including prediagnostic specimens, ideally collected at periodic intervals, along with clinical data about symptom status and cancer diagnosis. Three overarching recommendations emerged from the discussions: 1) facilitate sharing of existing specimens and data, 2) encourage collaboration among scientists developing biomarkers and those conducting observational cohort studies or managing healthcare systems with cohorts followed over time, and 3) conduct pilot projects that identify and address key logistic and feasibility issues regarding how appropriate specimens and clinical data might be collected at reasonable effort and cost within existing or future cohorts., (© Published by Oxford University Press 2015.)

Although there is ample literature reporting on the identification of molecular biomarkers for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, none is currently recommended for routine clinical use. A major reason for this lack of progress is the difficulty in designing studies in head and neck cancer to clearly establish the clinical utility of biomarkers. Consequently, biomarker studies frequently stall at the initial discovery phase. In this article, we focus on biomarkers for use in clinical management, including selection of therapy. Using several contemporary examples, we identify some of the common deficiencies in study design that hinder success in biomarker development for this disease area, and we suggest some potential solutions. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance that can assist investigators to more efficiently move promising biomarkers in head and neck cancer from discovery to clinical practice, ((c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer., Methods: ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing., Results: The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations., Recommendations: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.

Background: In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation using the marker Ki67 has potential use in both research and clinical management. However, lack of consistency across laboratories has limited Ki67's value. A working group was assembled to devise a strategy to harmonize Ki67 analysis and increase scoring concordance. Toward that goal, we conducted a Ki67 reproducibility study., Methods: Eight laboratories received 100 breast cancer cases arranged into 1-mm core tissue microarrays-one set stained by the participating laboratory and one set stained by the central laboratory, both using antibody MIB-1. Each laboratory scored Ki67 as percentage of positively stained invasive tumor cells using its own method. Six laboratories repeated scoring of 50 locally stained cases on 3 different days. Sources of variation were analyzed using random effects models with log2-transformed measurements. Reproducibility was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the approximate two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the true intraclass correlation coefficients in these experiments were provided., Results: Intralaboratory reproducibility was high (ICC = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.97). Interlaboratory reproducibility was only moderate (central staining: ICC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.78; local staining: ICC = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.68). Geometric mean of Ki67 values for each laboratory across the 100 cases ranged 7.1% to 23.9% with central staining and 6.1% to 30.1% with local staining. Factors contributing to interlaboratory discordance included tumor region selection, counting method, and subjective assessment of staining positivity. Formal counting methods gave more consistent results than visual estimation., Conclusions: Substantial variability in Ki67 scoring was observed among some of the world's most experienced laboratories. Ki67 values and cutoffs for clinical decision-making cannot be transferred between laboratories without standardizing scoring methodology because analytical validity is limited.

Predictive biomarkers to guide therapy for cancer patients are a cornerstone of precision medicine. Discussed herein are considerations regarding the design and interpretation of such predictive biomarker studies. These considerations are important for both planning and interpreting prospective studies and for using specimens collected from completed randomized clinical trials. Specific issues addressed are differentiation between qualitative and quantitative predictive effects, challenges due to sample size requirements for predictive biomarker assessment, and consideration of additional factors relevant to clinical utility assessment, such as toxicity and cost of new therapies as well as costs and potential morbidities associated with routine use of biomarker-based tests.

Purpose: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer., Methods: ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing., Results: The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations., Recommendations: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine., (Copyright © 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists.)

Clinical management decisions for patients with cancer are increasingly being guided by prognostic and predictive markers. Use of these markers should be based on a sufficiently comprehensive body of unbiased evidence to establish that benefits to patients outweigh harms and to justify expenditure of health care dollars. Careful assessments of the clinical utility of markers by using comparative effectiveness research methods are urgently needed to more rigorously summarize and evaluate the evidence, but multiple factors have made such assessments difficult. The literature on tumor markers is plagued by nonpublication bias, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting. Several measures to address these problems are discussed, including development of a tumor marker study registry, greater attention to assay analytic performance and specimen quality, use of more rigorous study designs and analysis plans to establish clinical utility, and adherence to higher standards for reporting tumor marker studies. More complete and transparent reporting by adhering to criteria such as BRISQ [Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality] criteria for reporting details about specimens and REMARK [Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies] criteria for reporting a multitude of aspects relating to study design, analysis, and results, is essential for reliable assessment of study quality, detection of potential biases, and proper interpretation of study findings. Adopting these measures will improve the quality of the body of evidence available for comparative effectiveness research and enhance the ability to establish the clinical utility of prognostic and predictive tumor markers.

Background: The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. It was developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. In this paper we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report., Methods: REMARK recommends including a transparent and full description of research goals and hypotheses, subject selection, specimen and assay considerations, marker measurement methods, statistical design and analysis, and study results. Each checklist item is explained and accompanied by published examples of good reporting, and relevant empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. We give prominence to discussion of the 'REMARK profile', a suggested tabular format for summarizing key study details., Summary: The paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. To encourage dissemination of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration, this article has also been published in PLoS Medicine.

Uncontrolled proliferation is a hallmark of cancer. In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of the proportion of cells staining for the nuclear antigen Ki67 has become the most widely used method for comparing proliferation between tumor samples. Potential uses include prognosis, prediction of relative responsiveness or resistance to chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, estimation of residual risk in patients on standard therapy and as a dynamic biomarker of treatment efficacy in samples taken before, during, and after neoadjuvant therapy, particularly neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Increasingly, Ki67 is measured in these scenarios for clinical research, including as a primary efficacy endpoint for clinical trials, and sometimes for clinical management. At present, the enormous variation in analytical practice markedly limits the value of Ki67 in each of these contexts. On March 12, 2010, an international panel of investigators with substantial expertise in the assessment of Ki67 and in the development of biomarker guidelines was convened in London by the co-chairs of the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group Biomarker Working Party to consider evidence for potential applications. Comprehensive recommendations on preanalytical and analytical assessment, and interpretation and scoring of Ki67 were formulated based on current evidence. These recommendations are geared toward achieving a harmonized methodology, create greater between-laboratory and between-study comparability, and allow earlier valid applications of this marker in clinical practice.

Tumor biomarker studies may generate insights into the biological characteristics that drive the clinical behavior of a cancer. Publication bias and hidden multiple hypotheses testing distort the assessment of the true value of biomarkers. Publication bias from preferential reporting of 'positive' findings is well recognized. Hidden multihypothesis testing arises from several biomarkers being tested by different teams using the same samples. The more hypotheses (that is, biomarker association with outcome) tested, the greater the risk of false-positive findings. These biases inflate the potential clinical validity and utility of published biomarkers while negative results often remain hidden. Trial registries have been developed where all phase II and phase III trials should be listed regardless of study outcome. However, such steps have not been taken to reduce such bias in tumor biomarker research. We propose that a registry should be created for biomarker studies initially focused on studies that use specimens from randomized trials. Further development could include nonrandomized studies and deposition of raw data similar to existing genomic data repositories. The benefits of a comprehensive biomarker study registry include more balanced evaluation of proposed markers, fewer false positive leads in research, and hopefully more rapid identification of promising candidate biomarkers.

Purpose: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers., Methods: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance., Results: Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria., Recommendations: The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Clinical biomarker tests that aid in making treatment decisions will play an important role in achieving personalized medicine for cancer patients. Definitive evaluation of the clinical utility of these biomarkers requires conducting large randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Efficient RCT design is therefore crucial for timely introduction of these medical advances into clinical practice, and a variety of designs have been proposed for this purpose. To guide design and interpretation of RCTs evaluating biomarkers, we present an in-depth comparison of advantages and disadvantages of the commonly used designs. Key aspects of the discussion include efficiency comparisons and special interim monitoring issues that arise because of the complexity of these RCTs. Important ongoing and completed trials are used as examples. We conclude that, in most settings, randomized biomarker-stratified designs (ie, designs that use the biomarker to guide analysis but not treatment assignment) should be used to obtain a rigorous assessment of biomarker clinical utility.

The incorporation of biomarkers into the drug development process will improve understanding of how new therapeutics work and allow for more accurate identification of patients who will benefit from those therapies. Strategically planned biomarker evaluations in phase II studies may allow for the design of more efficient phase III trials and better screening of therapeutics for entry into phase III development, hopefully leading to increased chances of positive phase III trial results. Some examples of roles that a biomarker can play in a phase II trial include predictor of response or resistance to specific therapies, patient enrichment, correlative endpoint, or surrogate endpoint. Considerations for using biomarkers most effectively in these roles are discussed in the context of several examples. The substantial technical, logistic, and ethical challenges that can be faced when trying to incorporate biomarkers into phase II trials are also addressed. A rational and coordinated approach to the inclusion of biomarker studies throughout the drug development process will be the key to attaining the goal of personalized medicine.

Background: Gene expression microarray studies for several types of cancer have been reported to identify previously unknown subtypes of tumors. For breast cancer, a molecular classification consisting of five subtypes based on gene expression microarray data has been proposed. These subtypes have been reported to exist across several breast cancer microarray studies, and they have demonstrated some association with clinical outcome. A classification rule based on the method of centroids has been proposed for identifying the subtypes in new collections of breast cancer samples; the method is based on the similarity of the new profiles to the mean expression profile of the previously identified subtypes., Methods: Previously identified centroids of five breast cancer subtypes were used to assign 99 breast cancer samples, including a subset of 65 estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) samples, to five breast cancer subtypes based on microarray data for the samples. The effect of mean centering the genes (i.e., transforming the expression of each gene so that its mean expression is equal to 0) on subtype assignment by method of centroids was assessed. Further studies of the effect of mean centering and of class prevalence in the test set on the accuracy of method of centroids classifications of ER status were carried out using training and test sets for which ER status had been independently determined by ligand-binding assay and for which the proportion of ER+ and ER- samples were systematically varied., Results: When all 99 samples were considered, mean centering before application of the method of centroids appeared to be helpful for correctly assigning samples to subtypes, as evidenced by the expression of genes that had previously been used as markers to identify the subtypes. However, when only the 65 ER+ samples were considered for classification, many samples appeared to be misclassified, as evidenced by an unexpected distribution of ER+ samples among the resultant subtypes. When genes were mean centered before classification of samples for ER status, the accuracy of the ER subgroup assignments was highly dependent on the proportion of ER+ samples in the test set; this effect of subtype prevalence was not seen when gene expression data were not mean centered., Conclusions: Simple corrections such as mean centering of genes aimed at microarray platform or batch effect correction can have undesirable consequences because patient population effects can easily be confused with these assay-related effects. Careful thought should be given to the comparability of the patient populations before attempting to force data comparability for purposes of assigning subtypes to independent subjects.

Purpose: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker., Methods: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations., Results: Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy., Recommendations: The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, pre-planned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often, initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.