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
. 2015 Jun;24(6):944-50.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1227. Epub 2015 Apr 2.

Improving the quality of biomarker discovery research: the right samples and enough of them

Affiliations

Improving the quality of biomarker discovery research: the right samples and enough of them

Margaret S Pepe et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Biomarker discovery research has yielded few biomarkers that validate for clinical use. A contributing factor may be poor study designs.

Methods: The goal in discovery research is to identify a subset of potentially useful markers from a large set of candidates assayed on case and control samples. We recommend the PRoBE design for selecting samples. We propose sample size calculations that require specifying: (i) a definition for biomarker performance; (ii) the proportion of useful markers the study should identify (Discovery Power); and (iii) the tolerable number of useless markers amongst those identified (False Leads Expected, FLE).

Results: We apply the methodology to a study of 9,000 candidate biomarkers for risk of colon cancer recurrence where a useful biomarker has positive predictive value ≥ 30%. We find that 40 patients with recurrence and 160 without recurrence suffice to filter out 98% of useless markers (2% FLE) while identifying 95% of useful biomarkers (95% Discovery Power). Alternative methods for sample size calculation required more assumptions.

Conclusions: Biomarker discovery research should utilize quality biospecimen repositories and include sample sizes that enable markers meeting prespecified performance characteristics for well-defined clinical applications to be identified.

Impact: The scientific rigor of discovery research should be improved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Key steps for choosing samples in a biomarker discovery study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Key steps for choosing samples in discovering biomarkers for predicting recurrence in stage 1 colon cancer patients.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1446–52. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Potter JD, Thompson M, Thornquist M, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1054–61. - PubMed
    1. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, Bossuyt PM, Potter JD. Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1432–38. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wallstrom G, Anderson KS, LaBaer J. Biomarker discovery for heterogeneous diseases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:747–55. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skates SJ, Gillette MA, LaBaer J, Carr SA, Anderson L, Liebler DC, et al. Statistical design for biospecimen cohort size in proteomics-based discovery and verification studies. J Proteome Res. 2013;12:5383–94. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances