Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Molecular Diagnostics

REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history

British Journal of Cancer volume 128, pages 443–445 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In 2005, several experts in tumor biomarker research publishe the REporting recommendations for Tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) criteria. Coupled with the subsequent Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ) criteria, these initiatives provide a framework for transparently reporting of the methods of study conduct and analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hayes DF, Allen J, Compton C, Gustavsen G, Leonard DG, McCormack R, et al. Breaking a vicious cycle. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:196cm196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, McKernin SE, Carey LA, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:545–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGuire WL. Breast cancer prognostic factors: Evaluation guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991;83:154–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Simon R, Altman DG. Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer. 1994;69:979–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Altman DG, Lyman GH. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:289–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Piper M, Calonge N, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med. 2009;11:3–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hayes DF. Defining Clinical Utility of Tumor Biomarker Tests: A Clinician’s Viewpoint. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:238–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J Proteome Res. 2011;10:3429–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, Collette L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2020–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:152–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1446–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer. 2005;93:387–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1180–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9067–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, et al. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pr Oncol. 2005;2:416–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, et al. REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, et al. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pr Urol. 2005;2:416–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;100:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (remark). Exp Oncol. 2006;28:99–105.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Altman, DG, McShane, L, Sauerbrei, W & Taube, SE Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med. 2012;10.

  22. Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Altman DG. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:803–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;119:92–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Biopreservation Biobanking. 2011;9:57–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sauerbrei W, Haeussler T, Balmford J, Huebner M. Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies. BMC Med. 2022;20:184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kempf E, de Beyer JA, Cook J, Holmes J, Mohammed S, Nguyen TL, et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2018;119:1288–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Sekula P, Mallett S, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178531.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Botos J. Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. Br J Surg. 2015;102:148–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to recognize the vision and leadership of the late Professor Douglas G. Altman whose passionate commitment to the quality of health research and its reporting were a driving force behind the REMARK guidelines. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge other members of the REMARK writing committee who made important contributions to the development of the guidelines and explanatory materials.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Daniel F. Hayes

  2. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str.26, 79104, Freiburg, Germany

    Willi Sauerbrei

  3. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Lisa M. McShane

Authors
  1. Daniel F. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Willi Sauerbrei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa M. McShane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All three authors contributed equally to preparation of this commentary.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel F. Hayes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

DFH has no conflicts specifically related to this study. DFH reports support unrelated to this study but provided to his institution in the last 24 months during conduct and analysis of this study from Astra Zeneca, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer. DFH reports personal income related to consulting or advisory board activities from BioVeca, Cellworks, Cepheid, EPIC Sciences, EXACT Sciences, Freenome, Guardant, L-Nutra, Macrogenics, Oncocyte, Predictus BioSciences, Tempus, Turnstone Biologics, and Xilis. The University of Michigan holds a patent for which DFH is the named investigator and which is licensed to Menarini Silicon Biosystems from whom UM and DFH receive annual royalties. DFH reports personally held stock options from InBiomotion. LMM declares no conflicts. WS declares no conflicts.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayes, D.F., Sauerbrei, W. & McShane, L.M. REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history. Br J Cancer 128, 443–445 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02046-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02046-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links