Reporting in studies of protein biomarkers of prognosis in colorectal cancer in relation to the REMARK guidelines

Lucy Jankova; Owen F Dent; Mark P Molloy; Charles Chan; Pierre H Chapuis; Viive M Howell; Stephen J Clarke

doi:10.1002/prca.201400177

Reporting in studies of protein biomarkers of prognosis in colorectal cancer in relation to the REMARK guidelines

Proteomics Clin Appl. 2015 Dec;9(11-12):1078-86. doi: 10.1002/prca.201400177. Epub 2015 May 7.

Authors

Lucy Jankova¹, Owen F Dent^{2

3}, Mark P Molloy⁴, Charles Chan^{5

6}, Pierre H Chapuis^{2

3}, Viive M Howell¹, Stephen J Clarke^{7

8}

Affiliations

¹ Bill Walsh Translational Cancer Research Laboratory, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
² Department of Colorectal Surgery, Concord Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
³ Discipline of Surgery, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁴ Australian Proteome Analysis Facility, Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁵ Department of Anatomical Pathology, Concord Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁶ Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁷ Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁸ Discipline of Medicine, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

PMID: 25755195
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201400177

Abstract

Purpose: The REMARK guidelines give authors comprehensive and specific advice on the complete and transparent reporting of studies of prognostic tumor markers. The aim of this study was to use the REMARK guidelines to evaluate the quality of reporting in a sample of studies assessing tissue-based protein markers for survival after resection of colorectal cancer.

Experimental design: Eighty pertinent articles were scored according to their conformity to 26 items derived from the REMARK criteria.

Results: Overall, on a scale of adequacy of reporting that potentially ranged from 26 to 78, the median for these studies was 60 (interquartile range 54-64) and several criteria were adequately covered in a large proportion of studies. However, others were either not dealt with or inadequately covered, including description of the study design (35%), definition of survival endpoints (48%), adjuvant therapy (54%), follow-up procedures and time (59%), neoadjuvant therapy (63%), inclusion/exclusion criteria (73%), multivariable modeling methods and results (74%), and discussion of study limitations (85%).

Conclusions and clinical relevance: Inadequacies in presentation militate against comparability among protein marker studies and undermine the generalizability of their findings. The quality of reporting could be improved if journal editors were to require authors to ensure that their work satisfied the REMARK criteria.

Keywords: Biomarker; Colorectal cancer; REMARK.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Biomarkers, Tumor / metabolism*
Colorectal Neoplasms / diagnosis*
Colorectal Neoplasms / metabolism*
Guidelines as Topic*
Humans
Prognosis
Proteomics*
Research Design / standards*

Substances

Biomarkers, Tumor