Translational Crossroads for Biomarkers

A group of investigators met at a Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Workshop to discuss key issues in the translation of biomarker discovery to the development of useful laboratory tests for cancer care. Development and approval of several new markers and technologies have provided informative examples that include more specific markers for prostate cancer, more sensitive tests for ovarian cancer, more objective analysis of tissue architecture and an earlier indication of response to treatment in breast cancer. Although there is no clear paradigm for biomarker development, several principles are clear. Marker development should be driven by clinical needs, including early cancer detection, accurate pretreatment staging, and prediction of response to treatment, as well as monitoring disease progression and response to therapy. Development of a national repository that uses carefully preserved, well-annotated tissue specimens will facilitate new marker development. Reference standards will be an essential component of this process. Both hospital-based and commercial laboratories can play a role in developing biomarkers from discovery to test validation. Partnering of academe and industry should occur throughout the process of biomarker development. The National Cancer Institute is in a unique position to bring together academe, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration to (a) define clinical needs for biomarkers by tumor type, (b) establish analytic and clinical paradigms for biomarker development, (c) discuss ways in which markers from different companies might be evaluated in combination, (d) establish computational methods to combine data from multiple biomarkers, (e) share information regarding promising markers developed in National Cancer Institute–supported programs, and (f) exchange data regarding new platforms and techniques that can accelerate marker development.

[1]  M S Pepe,et al.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  D. Rimm,et al.  Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays , 2002, Nature Medicine.

[3]  N Urban,et al.  Combining CA 125 and SMR serum markers for diagnosis and early detection of ovarian carcinoma. , 2004, Gynecologic oncology.

[4]  H. Lilja,et al.  Free and complexed prostate-specific antigen (PSA): in vitro stability, epitope map, and development of immunofluorometric assays for specific and sensitive detection of free PSA and PSA-alpha 1-antichymotrypsin complex. , 1995, Clinical chemistry.

[5]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Cumulative prostate cancer risk assessment with the aid of the free-to-total prostate specific antigen ratio. , 2004, European urology.

[6]  David L Rimm,et al.  Quantitative determination of expression of the prostate cancer protein alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase using automated quantitative analysis (AQUA): a novel paradigm for automated and continuous biomarker measurements. , 2004, The American journal of pathology.

[7]  M. Vihinen,et al.  Determination and analysis of antigenic epitopes of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2) using synthetic peptides and computer modeling , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  Alison Stopeck,et al.  Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Michèl Schummer,et al.  The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. , 2003, Cancer research.

[10]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Judging new markers by their ability to improve predictive accuracy. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Z. Hall.  Cancer , 1906, The Hospital.

[12]  D. Rimm,et al.  Long-term preservation of antigenicity on tissue microarrays , 2004, Laboratory Investigation.

[13]  David L Rimm,et al.  Quantitative analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays shows that both high and normal levels of HER2 expression are associated with poor outcome. , 2003, Cancer research.

[14]  Margaret Sullivan Pepe,et al.  Combining Several Screening Tests: Optimality of the Risk Score , 2002, Biometrics.

[15]  Charles Kooperberg,et al.  Combining biomarkers to detect disease with application to prostate cancer. , 2003, Biostatistics.

[16]  M. Kattan,et al.  The role of human glandular kallikrein 2 for prediction of pathologically organ confined prostate cancer , 2003, The Prostate.