Review Article | Published:

Primer: an evidence-based approach to prognostic markers

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology volume 2, pages 466472 (2005) | Download Citation



Prognostic markers can help to identify patients at different degrees of risk for specific outcomes, facilitate treatment choice, and aid patient counseling. Compared with other research designs, prognostic studies have been relatively neglected in the broad efforts to improve the quality of medical research, despite their ubiquity. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and in this article we discuss their main problems and how they can be improved. In particular, an evidence-based approach to prognostic markers is required, as it is usually difficult to ascertain the benefit of a marker from single studies and a clear view is only likely to emerge from looking across multiple studies. Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses often fail to provide clear evidence-based answers, and rather only draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. Prospectively planned pooled analyses of high-quality studies, along with general availability of individual patient data and adherence to reporting guidelines, would help alleviate many of these problems.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. (2003) A systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing's sarcoma and neuroblastoma. Health Technol Assess 7: 1–162

  2. 2.

    and (1998) Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52: 289–303

  3. 3.

    and (2004) Prognostic molecular markers in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 6: 109–118

  4. 4.

    et al. (1996) Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 1456–1466

  5. 5.

    et al. (2001) 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 19: 1865–1878

  6. 6.

    and (2002) Tumor markers as clinical cancer tests—are we there yet? Semin Oncol 29: 211–212

  7. 7.

    and (2002) c-erbB-2 in breast cancer: development of a clinically useful marker. Semin Oncol 29: 231–245

  8. 8.

    et al. (1995) Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 72: 511–518

  9. 9.

    et al. (1999) Modelling the effects of standard prognostic factors in node-positive breast cancer. German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG). Br J Cancer 79: 1752–1760

  10. 10.

    and (2004) Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer 91: 4–8

  11. 11.

    et al. for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics (2005) REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2: 416–422

  12. 12.

    et al. (2003) Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer 88: 1191–1198

  13. 13.

    et al. (1993) Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognostic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1206–1219

  14. 14.

    and (1994) Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 69: 979–985

  15. 15.

    and (1999) Predicting the future: a critical appraisal of cancer prognosis studies. Histopathology 35: 489–494

  16. 16.

    (2001) Evaluating prognostic factor studies. In Prognostic factors in cancer, 49–56 (Eds Gospodarowicz MK et al.) New York: Wiley-Liss

  17. 17.

    et al. (1999) A guide for reviewing submitted manuscripts (and indications for the design of translational research studies on biomarkers). Int J Biol Markers 14: 123–133

  18. 18.

    et al. (2000) Statistical issues in tumor marker studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124: 1011–1015

  19. 19.

    (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323: 224–228

  20. 20.

    et al. (2002) Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer. A decade of progress. Chest 122: 1037–1057

  21. 21.

    et al. (2002) Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years. Ann Surg 235: 10–26

  22. 22.

    et al. (2004) Thymidylate synthase expression and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 22: 529–536

  23. 23.

    et al. (2004) A systematic review of molecular and biological tumor markers in neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 10: 4–12

  24. 24.

    et al. (1998) Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess 2: 1–276

  25. 25.

    et al. (2000) Is there publication bias in the reporting of cancer risk in Barrett's esophagus? Gastroenterology 119: 333–338

  26. 26.

    et al. (2004) Sensitivity analyses allowed more appropriate and reliable meta-analysis conclusions for multiple outcomes when missing data was present. J Clin Epidemiol 57: 911–924

  27. 27.

    et al. (2003) Role of Bcl-2 as a prognostic factor for survival in lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 89: 55–64

  28. 28.

    et al. (2005) Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1043–1055

  29. 29.

    et al. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books

  30. 30.

    (1998) The pitfalls of narrative reviews in clinical medicine. Ann Oncol 9: 601–605

  31. 31.

    et al. (1994) Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 829–835

  32. 32.

    et al. (2001) Unresected colorectal liver metastases: prognostic value of laboratory variables. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 25: 962–966 [full text in English available at ]

  33. 33.

    et al. (2000) p53 immunohistochemistry as a prognostic marker in bladder cancer. Playground for urology scientists? Eur Urol 38: 691–699

  34. 34.

    American Urological Association (2000) Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. Oncology 14: 267–286

  35. 35.

    and (2004) Establishing a national tissue bank for surgically harvested cancer tissue. Br J Surg 91: 134–136

  36. 36.

    et al. (2004) The cooperative prostate cancer tissue resource: a specimen and data resource for cancer researchers. Clin Cancer Res 10: 4614–4621

  37. 37.

    and (1998) Specimen banks for cancer prognostic factor research. Arch Pathol Lab Med 122: 871–874

  38. 38.

    et al. (2004) The International Bladder Cancer Bank: proposal for a new study concept. Urol Oncol 22: 277–284

  39. 39.

    and (1995) Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med 14: 2057–2079

  40. 40.

    and (2005) The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Med Res Methodol 5: 14

  41. 41.

    et al.: Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med, in press

  42. 42.

    et al. (2003) Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19: 129–134

  43. 43.

    and (2002) To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 25: 76–97

  44. 44.

    et al. (2002) Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 116–128

  45. 45.

    et al. (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28: 1–9

  46. 46.

    (2000) Prognosis—what does the clinician associate with this notion? Stat Med 19: 425–430

Download references

Author information


  1. DG Altman is Professor of Statistics in Medicine in the Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group at the Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford, UK.

    • Douglas G Altman
  2. RD Riley is a Research Fellow in Evidence Synthesis (funded by the Department of Health NCCRCD) in the Centre for Biostatistics and Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

    • Richard D Riley


  1. Search for Douglas G Altman in:

  2. Search for Richard D Riley in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas G Altman.

About this article

Publication history





Further reading