Thus, marker is still considered highly investigational and should not be used for standard clinical practice. Marker should not be ordered for that clinical use.ĭata not available for the marker for that use because marker has not been studied for that use.ĭata are suggestive that marker may correlate with biological processes and/or end points, and preliminary data suggest that use of the marker may contribute to favorable clinical outcome, but more definitive studies are required. Marker adequately evaluated for specific use data definitively demonstrate no utility. TABLE 28-2 Scale to Evaluate Utility of Tumor Markers for Favorable Clinical Outcomes “Relative predictive value” (RPV), the ratio of the probability of response to treatment in a factor-positive patient as compared to that in a factor-negative patient, has been proposed as a means of quantifying the strength of predictive factors as weak (RPV = 1 - 2), moderate (RPV = 2 - 4), or strong (RPV > 4). They further proposed a similar rating of the strength of predictive factors by tumor response to and clinical benefit from a specific therapy. ( 10) proposed that prognostic factors in breast cancer be categorized quantitatively by their associated hazard ratios (HR), HR 2.0 strong factors. In panel B, factor 1 is a weak predictive factor while factor 2 is a much stronger one. A large incremental difference in prognosis related to positive and negative status is observed for factor 1 (a strong prognostic factor such as lymph node status) while that for factor 2 is much smaller (ER status). Prognosis versus therapy are plotted as binomial variables ( 8, 10). Pure prognostic and predictive factors are schematically depicted in Figure 28-1, panels A and B, respectively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |