Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Tumor Biomarkers

Practical Considerations Prior to Clinical Application

  • Chapter
Cancer Proteomics

Part of the book series: Cancer Drug Discovery and Development ((CDD&D))

Summary

This chapter describes the key elements in tumor biomarker development toward clinical use. In particular, it focuses on the analytical aspects of assay development and how to implement new tumor biomarkers in the clinical setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Diamandis EP. Tumor markers: past, present, and future. In Tumor Markers: Physiology, Pathobiology, Technology, and Clinical Applications, EP Diamandis, H Fritsche, Jr, H Lilja, D Chan, M Schwartz (eds). Washington, DC, American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) Press, 2002, pp 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, Fritsche H, Jr, Kemeny NE, Jessup JM, Locker GY, Macdonald JS, Mennel RG, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Winn RJ. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1456–1466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Meunier, F. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Brussels, EORTC, 2006 (http://www.eortc.be).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schmitt M, Harbeck N, Daidone MG, Brunner N, Duffy MJ, Foekens JA, Sweep FC. Identification, validation, and clinical implementation of tumor-associated biomarkers to improve therapy concepts, survival, and quality of life of cancer patients: tasks of the Receptor and Biomarker Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Oncol 2004;5:1397–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schrohl AS, Holten-Andersen M, Sweep F, Schmitt M, Harbeck N, Foekens J, Brunner N. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Receptor and Biomarker Group. Tumor markers: from laboratory to clinical utility. Mol Cell Proteomics 2003;6:378–87.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Westgard JO, Barry PL. Cost-Effective Quality Control: Managing the Quality and Productivity of Analytical Processes. Washington, DC, American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moseley KR, Knapp RC, Haisma HJ. An assay for the detection of human anti-murine immunoglobin in the presence of CA 125 antigen. J Immunol Methods 1988;106:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Koenders A, Thorpe SM, on behalf of the EORTC Receptor Group Standardization of steroid receptor assays in human breast cancer-I. Reproducibility of oestradiol and progesterone receptor assays. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983;19:1221–1229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Geurts-Moespot J, Leake R, Benraad TJ, Sweep CGJ. Twenty years of experience with the steroid receptor External Quality Assessment program - the paradigm for tumour biomarker EQA studies (review). Int J Oncol 2000;17:13–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sweep CGJ, Geurts-Moespot J. EORTC external quality assurance program for ER and PgR measurements: trial 1998/1999. Int J Biol Markers 2000;15:62–69.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sweep CGJ, Geurts-Moespot J, Grebenschikov N, de Witte JH, Heuvel JJTM, Schmitt M, Duffy MJ, Jänicke F, Kramer MD, Foekens JA, Brünner N, Brugal G, Pedersen AN, Benraad TJ. External quality assessment of trans-European multicentre antigen determinations (ELISA) of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its type-1 inhibitor (PAI-1) in human breast cancer tissue extracts. Br J Cancer 1998;78:1434–1441.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Westgard JO, Barry PL, Hunt MR, Groth T. A multi-rule Shewart chart for quality control in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 1981;27:493–501.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Koenders A, Benraad TJ. Standardization of steroid receptor analysis in breast cancer biopsies: EORTC receptor group. Recent Results Cancer Res 1984;91:129–135.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, James PD, Mangham CM. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer [see comments]. Lancet 1996;348:1472–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test [see comments]. Lancet 1996;348:1467–1471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Jr, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:653–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson IC, Patek AJ. The relationship between prognostic and predictive factors in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;52;261–288.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Basil CF, Zhao Y, Zavaglia K, Jin P, Panelli MC, Voiculescu S, Mandruzzato S, Lee HM, Seliger B, Freedman RS, Taylor PR, Hu N, Zanovello P, Marincola FM, Wang E. Common cancer biomarkers. Cancer Res 2006;66:2953–2961.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holten-Andersen MN, Stephens RW, Nielsen HJ, Murphy G, Christensen IJ, Stetler-Stevenson W, Brunner N. High preoperative plasma tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 levels are associated with short survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4292–4299.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Duffy MJ. Clinical uses of tumor markers: a critical review. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2001;38:225–262.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas CMG, Sweep CGJ. Serum tumor markers: past, state of the art and future. Int J Biol Markers 2001;16:73–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Janicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C, et al. For the German Chemo No Study Group. Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:913–920.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Look M P, van Putten WLJ, Duffy MJ, et al. Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of tumor biological factors uPA and PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:116–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harbeck N, Kates RE, Schmitt M. Clinical relevance of invasion factors urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 for individualised therapy in primary breast cancer is greatest when used in combination. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1000–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP, et al. Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (N = 3424). Cancer Res 2002;62:4617–4622.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Simon R. Development and validation of therapeutically relevant multi-gene biomarker classifiers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:866–867.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Duffy MJ. Predictive markers in breast and other cancers. Clin Chem 2005;51:494–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bruinvels DJ, Stiggelbout AM, Kievit J, van Houwelingen HC, Habbema DF, van de Velde CH. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1994;219:174–182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosen M, Chan L, Beart RW, Vukasin P, Anthone G. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1116–1126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, O’Dwyer ST. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2002;324:813–816.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2003;3:26–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bosl GJ, Motzer RJ. Testicular germ-cell cancer. N Engl J Med 1977;337:242–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tuxen MK, Soletormos G, Rustin GJS, et al. Biological variation and analytical imprecision of CA 125 in patients with ovarian cancer. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000;69:713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Soletormos G, Semjonow A, Sibley PEC, et al. Biological variation of total prostate-specific antigen: a survey of published estimates and consequence for clinical practice. Clin Chem 2005;51:1342–1351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bridgewater JA, Nelstrop AE, Rustn GJS, et al. Comparison of standard and of CA 125 response criteria in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with platinum or paclitaxel, J Clin Oncol 2003;17:501–508.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rustin GJS, Nelstrop AE, McClean P, et al. Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1545–1551.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rustin GJS. Use of CA 125 to assess response to new agents in ovarian cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:187s–193s.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rustin GJS, Nelstrop AE, Bebtzen SM, et al. Selection of active drugs for ovarian cancer based on CA 125 and standard response rates in phase II trials. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1733–1739.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Nils Brünner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mads Holten-Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred Sweep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Foekens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manfred Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael J. Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

    Sayed S. Daoud

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brünner, N., Holten-Andersen, M., Sweep, F., Foekens, J., Schmitt, M., Duffy, M.J. (2008). New Tumor Biomarkers. In: Daoud, S.S. (eds) Cancer Proteomics. Cancer Drug Discovery and Development. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-169-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-169-7_9

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-858-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-169-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation