Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Mar;8(3):171-6.
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.4.

Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry

Affiliations
Review

Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry

Fabrice Andre et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Br J Cancer. 1994 Jun;69(6):979-85 - PubMed
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 20;97(14):1043-55 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 29;353(26):2779-87 - PubMed
    1. CMAJ. 2010 Oct 19;182(15):1638-42 - PubMed
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Nov 4;101(21):1446-52 - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources