UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 5,6

of 'Prognostic and predictive factors in metastatic breast cancer'

5
TI
Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognostic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients.
AU
Gasparini G, Pozza F, Harris AL
SO
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(15):1206.
 
The incidence of breast cancer is increasing in all Western countries. Due both to a more widespread public education and to early diagnosis by mammography screening programs, the percentage of patients with node-negative breast cancer has gone up to 70%. Thus, node-negative breast cancer is a major public health problem and, consequently, clinical research in this setting is an expanding field. A recent overview analysis confirmed the results of five prospective randomized clinical trials suggesting that systemic adjuvant therapy can benefit node-negative breast cancer patients. Because of the heterogeneity of node-negative breast cancer, it is reasonable to attempt to avoid excessive treatment morbidity and costs by using selective prognostic markers to identify patients at high risk for disease recurrence who are eligible for postsurgical systemic adjuvant therapy. It is also desirable to use predictive markers in selecting the therapy to which each patient is more likely to respond. The need for additional prognostic and predictive factors has led to identification of a plethora of potentially useful markers. As a result, the selection of patients at different risks of developing node-negative breast cancer and the choice for appropriate therapy remain difficult and confusing for the clinician. Moreover, the majority of studies have examined new markers individually rather than by multivariate analysis and retrospectively rather than prospectively. Thus, there are also important methodologic biases in such studies. This analysis consists of (a) defining the clinical "problem," (b) defining the terms of prognostic and predictive factors, (c) suggesting more appropriate laboratory and clinical approaches to properly evaluate a new indicator, (d) identifying the subsets of patients in whom the use of new prognosticators is warranted and of particular importance, and (e) providing some direction for future research on this topic. Our ultimate goals are to facilitate the understanding of node-negative breast cancer prognostic markers among clinicians, to help them select the most appropriate indicator for specific situations, and to recommend methodology for future research.
AD
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, St. Bortolo Regional Medical Center, Vicenza, Italy.
PMID
6
TI
Assessing the clinical impact of prognostic factors: when is "statistically significant" clinically useful?
AU
Hayes DF, Trock B, Harris AL
SO
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52(1-3):305.
 
Very few tumor markers have been recommended for routine clinical care of patients with breast cancer. A framework to determine the clinical utility of tumor markers is required. In a previous publication, a "Tumor Marker Utility Grading System" (TMUGS) was proposed. TMUGS included a semi-quantitative grading scale (0-3+) which can be used to assign a score to a given tumor marker for a given outcome. Only those markers that are felt to be sufficiently strong to influence a therapeutic decision that results in improved clinical outcome for the patient are recommended. The studies from which data are used to assign a TMUGS grade can be placed into one of five Levels of Evidence (LOE). An extension of TMUGS ("TMUGS-Plus") is now proposed in which the relative strength of a prognostic or predictive factor can be estimated and expressed in terms of a risk ratio (RR) for prognostic factors or benefit ratio (BR) for predictive factors. Three categories of prognostic factors and three categories of predictive factors are proposed (strong, moderate, and weak). It is recommended that only LOE type I studies (prospective, highly powered studies of the tumor marker, or meta-analysis of LOE II or III datasets), be used to estimate the RR or BR of a given factor. Finally, a matrix, based on assumptions of acceptable absolute benefits relative to risks, is proposed in which any given tumor marker can be assessed for its clinical utility. TMUGS-Plus should aid in the assessment of published data regarding clinical utility of tumor markers. Perhaps more important, clinical investigators can use TMUGS-Plus to design tumor marker studies that will fulfill criteria for clinical utility, resulting in more rapid acceptance of tumor markers for routine clinical use.
AD
Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. hayesdf@gunet.georgetown.edu
PMID