Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: Recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Less than 1% of published cancer biomarkers actually enter clinical practice. Although best practices for biomarker development are published, optimistic investigators may not appreciate the statistical near-certainty and diverse modes by which the other 99% (likely including your favorite new marker) do indeed fail. Here, patterns of failure were abstracted for classification from publications and an online database detailing marker failures. Failure patterns formed a hierarchical logical structure, or outline, of an emerging, deeply complex, and arguably fascinating science of biomarker failure. A new cancer biomarker under development is likely to have already encountered one or more of the following fatal features encountered by prior markers: lack of clinical significance, hidden structure in the source data, a technically inadequate assay, inappropriate statistical methods, unmanageable domination of the data by normal variation, implausibility, deficiencies in the studied population or in the investigator system, and its disproof or abandonment for cause by others. A greater recognition of the science of biomarker failure and its near-complete ubiquity is constructive and celebrates a seemingly perpetual richness of biologic, technical, and philosophical complexity, the full appreciation of which could improve the management of scarce research resources.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)6097-6101
Number of pages5
JournalCancer Research
Volume72
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: Recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this