Department of Medicine, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011 Jan;9(1):13-25. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2011.0004.
Predictive and prognostic biomarkers offer a potential means to personalize cancer medicine, although many reach the market-place before they have been validated, and their adoption is often hindered by variable clinical evidence. Because of this variability in supporting evidence, clinical practice guidelines formulated by panels of subspecialty experts may be particularly important in guiding stakeholders' acceptance and use of new personalized medicine biomarker tests and other nascent technologies. This article provides a structured review of the clinical evidence supporting 4 contemporary biomarker tests in colorectal cancer: K-ras and B-raf mutation analyses, mismatch repair protein testing, and the Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay. All 4 tests have been evaluated for guideline inclusion by the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon Cancer. This case study shows significant variability in the level of clinical evidence associated with these tests. In the cases of B-raf and mismatch repair protein testing, the available evidence is also inconsistent as it pertains to the specific NCCN Guideline recommendation. Based on this uncertainty in the evidence base, the authors conclude that expert clinical judgment, experience, and consensus may be more heavily weighted than published clinical trial data in the evaluation of new personalized medicine biomarker tests. Potential implications of this conclusion and future directions for research are discussed.
预测性和预后性生物标志物为癌症个体化治疗提供了一种潜在的手段,尽管许多生物标志物在得到验证之前就已经进入市场,但其应用常常受到临床证据的差异的阻碍。由于支持证据的这种可变性,由亚专科专家小组制定的临床实践指南在指导利益相关者接受和使用新的个体化药物生物标志物检测和其他新兴技术方面可能特别重要。本文对支持结直肠癌中 4 种当代生物标志物检测的临床证据进行了结构化回顾:K-ras 和 B-raf 突变分析、错配修复蛋白检测和 Oncotype DX 结肠癌分析。所有 4 种检测均由 NCCN 结肠癌指南小组进行了指南纳入评估。该案例研究表明,这些检测相关的临床证据水平存在显著差异。在 B-raf 和错配修复蛋白检测的情况下,与特定的 NCCN 指南建议相关的可用证据也是不一致的。基于证据基础中的这种不确定性,作者得出结论,在评估新的个体化药物生物标志物检测时,专家临床判断、经验和共识的权重可能比已发表的临床试验数据更大。讨论了这一结论的潜在影响和未来研究方向。