Over the last 10 years there has been an explosion of information about the molecular biology of cancer. A challenge in oncology is to translate this information into advances in patient care. While there are well-formed routes for translating new molecular information into drug therapy, the routes for translating new information into sensitive and specific diagnostic, prognostic and predictive tests are still being developed. Similarly, the science of using tumor molecular profiles to select clinical trial participants or to optimize therapy for individual patients is still in its infancy. This review will summarize the current technologies for predicting treatment response and prognosis in cancer medicine, and outline what the future may hold. It will also highlight the potential importance of methods that can integrate molecular, histopathological and clinical information into a synergistic understanding of tumor progression. While these possibilities are without doubt exciting, significant challenges remain if we are to implement them with a strong evidence base in a widely available and cost-effective manner.

Health Technology Assessment Volume: 11, Issue: 44, Published in November 2007

Background: Screening to identify hospital inpatients with a short life expectancy may be a way to improve care towards the end of life. The Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance is a screening tool that has recently been advocated for use in the hospital setting. Aim: To assess the clinical utility of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance as a screening tool in an acute hospital setting. Main outcome measures: Mortality at 6 and 12 months and sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance at 1 year. Design, setting and participants: Prospective cross-sectional study of 501 adult inpatients in a tertiary New Zealand teaching hospital screened utilising the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance. Results: A total of 99 patients were identified as meeting at least one of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance triggers. In this group, 6-month mortality was 56.6% and 12-month mortality was 67.7% compared with 5.2% and 10%, respectively, for those not identified as meeting the criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance at 1 year were 62.6% and 91.9%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 67.7% and a negative predictive value of 90.0%. Conclusion: The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance in this study are comparable to, or better than, results of studies identifying patients with a limited life expectancy in particular disease states (e.g. heart failure and renal failure). Screening utilising the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance in the acute setting could be the first step towards implementing a more systematic way of addressing patient need – both current unrecognised and future anticipated – thereby improving outcomes for this population.

Surrogate markers of clinical outcome are important in anticancer drug research, since clinical criteria of response develop only slowly and may be confounded by other processes than drug effect. T...