Abstract

Background: Modern genomic and proteomic studies reveal that many diseases are heterogeneous, comprising multiple different subtypes. The common notion that one biomarker can be predictive for all patients may need to be replaced by an understanding that each subtype has its own set of unique biomarkers, affecting how discovery studies are designed and analyzed. Methods: We used Monte Carlo simulation to measure and compare the performance of eight selection methods with homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases using both single-stage and two-stage designs. We also applied the selection methods in an actual proteomic biomarker screening study of heterogeneous breast cancer cases. Results: Different selection methods were optimal, and more than two-fold larger sample sizes were needed for heterogeneous diseases compared with homogeneous diseases. We also found that for larger studies, twostage designs can achieve nearly the same statistical power as single-stage designs at significantly reduced cost. Conclusions: We found that disease heterogeneity profoundly affected biomarker performance. We report sample size requirements and provide guidance on the design and analysis of biomarker discovery studies for both homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases. Impact: We have shown that studies to identify biomarkers for the early detection of heterogeneous disease require different statistical selection methods and larger sample sizes than if the disease were homogeneous. These findings provide a methodologic platform for biomarker discovery of heterogeneous diseases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 747-55.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)747-755
Number of pages9
JournalCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention
Volume22
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2013

Fingerprint

Biomarkers
Sample Size
Proteomics
Tumor Biomarkers
Early Diagnosis
Breast Neoplasms
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Biomarker discovery for heterogeneous diseases. / Wallstrom, Garrick; Anderson, Karen; LaBaer, Joshua.

In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 22, No. 5, 05.2013, p. 747-755.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f0577f9e220646db98ba06fc40657493,
title = "Biomarker discovery for heterogeneous diseases",
abstract = "Background: Modern genomic and proteomic studies reveal that many diseases are heterogeneous, comprising multiple different subtypes. The common notion that one biomarker can be predictive for all patients may need to be replaced by an understanding that each subtype has its own set of unique biomarkers, affecting how discovery studies are designed and analyzed. Methods: We used Monte Carlo simulation to measure and compare the performance of eight selection methods with homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases using both single-stage and two-stage designs. We also applied the selection methods in an actual proteomic biomarker screening study of heterogeneous breast cancer cases. Results: Different selection methods were optimal, and more than two-fold larger sample sizes were needed for heterogeneous diseases compared with homogeneous diseases. We also found that for larger studies, twostage designs can achieve nearly the same statistical power as single-stage designs at significantly reduced cost. Conclusions: We found that disease heterogeneity profoundly affected biomarker performance. We report sample size requirements and provide guidance on the design and analysis of biomarker discovery studies for both homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases. Impact: We have shown that studies to identify biomarkers for the early detection of heterogeneous disease require different statistical selection methods and larger sample sizes than if the disease were homogeneous. These findings provide a methodologic platform for biomarker discovery of heterogeneous diseases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 747-55.",
author = "Garrick Wallstrom and Karen Anderson and Joshua LaBaer",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1236",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "747--755",
journal = "Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention",
issn = "1055-9965",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomarker discovery for heterogeneous diseases

AU - Wallstrom, Garrick

AU - Anderson, Karen

AU - LaBaer, Joshua

PY - 2013/5

Y1 - 2013/5

N2 - Background: Modern genomic and proteomic studies reveal that many diseases are heterogeneous, comprising multiple different subtypes. The common notion that one biomarker can be predictive for all patients may need to be replaced by an understanding that each subtype has its own set of unique biomarkers, affecting how discovery studies are designed and analyzed. Methods: We used Monte Carlo simulation to measure and compare the performance of eight selection methods with homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases using both single-stage and two-stage designs. We also applied the selection methods in an actual proteomic biomarker screening study of heterogeneous breast cancer cases. Results: Different selection methods were optimal, and more than two-fold larger sample sizes were needed for heterogeneous diseases compared with homogeneous diseases. We also found that for larger studies, twostage designs can achieve nearly the same statistical power as single-stage designs at significantly reduced cost. Conclusions: We found that disease heterogeneity profoundly affected biomarker performance. We report sample size requirements and provide guidance on the design and analysis of biomarker discovery studies for both homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases. Impact: We have shown that studies to identify biomarkers for the early detection of heterogeneous disease require different statistical selection methods and larger sample sizes than if the disease were homogeneous. These findings provide a methodologic platform for biomarker discovery of heterogeneous diseases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 747-55.

AB - Background: Modern genomic and proteomic studies reveal that many diseases are heterogeneous, comprising multiple different subtypes. The common notion that one biomarker can be predictive for all patients may need to be replaced by an understanding that each subtype has its own set of unique biomarkers, affecting how discovery studies are designed and analyzed. Methods: We used Monte Carlo simulation to measure and compare the performance of eight selection methods with homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases using both single-stage and two-stage designs. We also applied the selection methods in an actual proteomic biomarker screening study of heterogeneous breast cancer cases. Results: Different selection methods were optimal, and more than two-fold larger sample sizes were needed for heterogeneous diseases compared with homogeneous diseases. We also found that for larger studies, twostage designs can achieve nearly the same statistical power as single-stage designs at significantly reduced cost. Conclusions: We found that disease heterogeneity profoundly affected biomarker performance. We report sample size requirements and provide guidance on the design and analysis of biomarker discovery studies for both homogeneous and heterogeneous diseases. Impact: We have shown that studies to identify biomarkers for the early detection of heterogeneous disease require different statistical selection methods and larger sample sizes than if the disease were homogeneous. These findings provide a methodologic platform for biomarker discovery of heterogeneous diseases. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 747-55.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877958539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877958539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1236

DO - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1236

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 747

EP - 755

JO - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

JF - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

SN - 1055-9965

IS - 5

ER -