Abstract
The advent of novel genomic technologies that enable the evaluation of genomic alterations on a genome-wide scale has significantly altered the field of genomic marker research in solid tumors. Researchers have moved away from the traditional model of identifying a particular genomic alteration and evaluating the association between this finding and a clinical outcome measure to a new approach involving the identification and measurement of multiple genomic markers simultaneously within clinical studies. This in turn has presented additional challenges in considering the use of genomic markers in oncology, such as clinical study design, reproducibility and interpretation and reporting of results. This Review will explore these challenges, focusing on microarray-based gene-expression profiling, and highlights some common failings in study design that have impacted on the use of putative genomic markers in the clinic. Despite these rapid technological advances there is still a paucity of genomic markers in routine clinical use at present. A rational and focused approach to the evaluation and validation of genomic markers is needed, whereby analytically validated markers are investigated in clinical studies that are adequately powered and have pre-defined patient populations and study endpoints. Furthermore, novel adaptive clinical trial designs, incorporating putative genomic markers into prospective clinical trials, will enable the evaluation of these markers in a rigorous and timely fashion. Such approaches have the potential to facilitate the implementation of such markers into routine clinical practice and consequently enable the rational and tailored use of cancer therapies for individual patients.
Key Points
-
Despite extensive research, relatively few genomic markers have been implemented into routine clinical use, often because of failings in clinical study design
-
The traditional 'single disease, single genomic marker' approach does not consider tumor heterogeneity and consequently single genomic markers are often found to be inadequate biomarkers in clinical studies
-
The introduction of new high-throughput genomic technologies has enabled the simultaneous measurement of multiple genomic alterations, and has revolutionized the field of genomic marker research in oncology
-
High-throughput technologies have presented additional challenges to considering the routine clinical use of putative genomic markers
-
Putative genomic markers should undergo extensive validation before they are implemented into routine clinical practice
-
Novel adaptive clinical trial designs that incorporate genomic markers into prospective studies will enable the evaluation of markers in a rigorous, timely fashion and facilitate their implementation into clinical practice
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pusztai, L. et al. Clinical application of cDNA microarrays in oncology. Oncologist 8, 252–258 (2003).
Harris, L. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5287–5312 (2007).
Sotiriou, C. & Pusztai, L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 790–800 (2009).
Workman, P. & de Bono, J. Targeted therapeutics for cancer treatment: major progress towards personalised molecular medicine. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 8, 359–362 (2008).
Cunningham, D. et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 337–345 (2004).
Saltz, L. B. et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 1201–1208 (2004).
Chung, K. Y. et al. Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 1803–1810 (2005).
Khambata-Ford, S. et al. Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and K-ras mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3230–3237 (2007).
Lievre, A. et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 374–379 (2008).
Amado, R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1626–1634 (2008).
Spano, J. P. et al. Potential predictive markers of response to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 66, 21–30 (2008).
Churchill, G. A. Fundamentals of experimental design for cDNA microarrays. Nat. Genet. 32, 490–495 (2002).
Emmert-Buck, M. R. et al. Laser capture microdissection. Science 274, 998–1001 (1996).
Luzzi, V. I., Holtschlag, V. & Watson, M. A. Gene expression profiling of primary tumor cell populations using laser capture microdissection, RNA transcript amplification, and GeneChip microarrays. Methods Mol. Biol. 293, 187–207 (2005).
Ramaswamy, S. & Golub, T. R. DNA microarrays in clinical oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 1932–1941 (2002).
Mook, S. et al. Daily clinical practice of fresh tumour tissue freezing and gene expression profiling; logistics pilot study preceding the MINDACT trial. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 1201–1208 (2009).
Masuda, N. et al. Analysis of chemical modification of RNA from formalin-fixed samples and optimization of molecular biology applications for such samples. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 4436–4443 (1999).
Oberli, A. et al. Expression profiling with RNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material. BMC Med. Genomics 1, 9 (2008).
Lassmann, S. et al. A novel approach for reliable microarray analysis of microdissected tumor cells from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded colorectal cancer resection specimens. J. Mol. Med. 87, 211–224 (2009).
Chen, J., Byrne, G. E. Jr & Lossos, I. S. Optimization of RNA extraction from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded lymphoid tissues. Diagn. Mol. Pathol. 16, 61–72 (2007).
Bibikova, M. et al. Quantitative gene expression profiling in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues using universal bead arrays. Am. J. Pathol. 165, 1799–1807 (2004).
Horlings, H. M. et al. Gene expression profiling to identify the histogenetic origin of metastatic adenocarcinomas of unknown primary. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4435–4441 (2008).
Farragher, S. M. et al. RNA expression analysis from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues. Histochem. Cell. Biol. 130, 435–445 (2008).
Scicchitano, M. S. et al. Preliminary comparison of quantity, quality, and microarray performance of RNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, and unfixed frozen tissue samples. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 54, 1229–1237 (2006).
Srivastava, P. K. et al. A cut-off based approach for gene expression analysis of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue samples. Genomics 91, 522–529 (2008).
Hoshida, Y. et al. Gene expression in fixed tissues and outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1995–2004 (2008).
Bertucci, F. et al. Gene expression profiling of colon cancer by DNA microarrays and correlation with histoclinical parameters. Oncogene 23, 1377–1391 (2004).
Croner, R. S. et al. Common denominator genes that distinguish colorectal carcinoma from normal mucosa. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 20, 353–362 (2005).
Friederichs, J. et al. Gene expression profiles of different clinical stages of colorectal carcinoma: toward a molecular genetic understanding of tumor progression. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 20, 391–402 (2005).
Groene, J. et al. Transcriptional census of 36 microdissected colorectal cancers yields a gene signature to distinguish UICC II and III. Int. J. Cancer 119, 1829–1836 (2006).
Agrawal, D. et al. Osteopontin identified as lead marker of colon cancer progression, using pooled sample expression profiling. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 513–521 (2002).
Ki, D. H. et al. Whole genome analysis for liver metastasis gene signatures in colorectal cancer. Int. J. Cancer 121, 2005–2012 (2007).
Koh, K. H. et al. Differential gene expression profiles of metastases in paired primary and metastatic colorectal carcinomas. Oncology 75, 92–101 (2008).
Koehler, A. et al. Gene expression profiling of colorectal cancer and metastases divides tumours according to their clinicopathological stage. J. Pathol. 204, 65–74 (2004).
Matsuyama, R. et al. Predicting 5-fluorouracil chemosensitivity of liver metastases from colorectal cancer using primary tumor specimens: three-gene expression model predicts clinical response. Int. J. Cancer 119, 406–413 (2006).
Del Rio, M. et al. Gene expression signature in advanced colorectal cancer patients select drugs and response for the use of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 773–780 (2007).
Golub, T. R. et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286, 531–537 (1999).
Simon, R. et al. Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 14–18 (2003).
Quackenbush, J. Microarray analysis and tumor classification. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 2463–2472 (2006).
Eschrich, S. & Yeatman, T. J. DNA microarrays and data analysis: an overview. Surgery 136, 500–503 (2004).
Dupuy, A. & Simon, R. M. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 147–157 (2007).
Dobbin, K. K., Zhao, Y. & Simon, R. M. How large a training set is needed to develop a classifier for microarray data? Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 108–114 (2008).
National Institutes of Health. Sample size calculation [online] (2009).
Wang, Y. et al. Gene expression profiles and molecular markers to predict recurrence of Dukes' B colon cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 1564–1571 (2004).
Hess, K. R. et al. Pharmacogenomic predictor of sensitivity to preoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 4236–4244 (2006).
Pusztai, L. & Hess, K. R. Clinical trial design for microarray predictive marker discovery and assessment. Ann. Oncol. 15, 1731–1737 (2004).
Taylor, J. M., Ankerst, D. P. & Andridge, R. R. Validation of biomarker-based risk prediction models. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5977–5983 (2008).
Simon, R. & Wang, S. J. Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases. Pharmacogenomics J. 6, 166–173 (2006).
George, S. L. Statistical issues in translational cancer research. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5954–5958 (2008).
Dobbin, K. K. et al. Interlaboratory comparability study of cancer gene expression analysis using oligonucleotide microarrays. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 565–572 (2005).
McShane, L. M. et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2, 416–422 (2005).
Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001).
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F. & Altman, D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285, 1987–1991 (2001).
Canales, R. D. et al. Evaluation of DNA microarray results with quantitative gene expression platforms. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1115–1122 (2006).
Shi, L. et al. The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1151–1161 (2006).
Shi, L. et al. Reproducible and reliable microarray results through quality control: good laboratory proficiency and appropriate data analysis practices are essential. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 19, 10–18 (2008).
FDA US Food and Drug Administration. Critical Path Initiative [online] (2009).
FDA US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions [online] (2009).
Geyer, F. C. & Reis-Filho, J. S. Microarray-based gene expression profiling as a clinical tool for breast cancer management: are we there yet? Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 17, 285–302 (2008).
Bueno-de-Mesquita, J. M. et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol. 8, 1079–1087 (2007).
Simon, R. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5984–5993 (2008).
Freidlin, B. & Simon, R. Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 7872–7878 (2005).
Jiang, W., Freidlin, B. & Simon, R. Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 1036–1043 (2007).
Simon, R. Challenges of microarray data and the evaluation of gene expression profile signatures. Cancer Invest. 26, 327–332 (2008).
Ransohoff, D. F. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 1205–1219 (2007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Patrick G. Johnston declares he is a stock-holder for products made by Almac, Fusion Antibodies and GlaxoSmithKline. Vicky M. Coyle declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coyle, V., Johnston, P. Genomic markers for decision making: what is preventing us from using markers?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7, 90–97 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.214
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.214