Article

Biomarker Tests

Author(s):

Biomarker tests must strike a balance between sensitivity and specificity.

Screening tests confirm or disprove a healthcare provider’s suspicion that a patient has cancer so that a medical decision can then be made. But in order for a test to be considered useful, it must be able to correctly distinguish between a person who has the disease and a person who does not. Ideally, a test would be 100 percent accurate; however, while tests in the clinic are usually quite accurate, there are still some errors to account for. The following measures help determine a test’s usefulness:

Accuracy is the likelihood that a positive test result indicates disease or that a negative test result excludes disease. The accuracy of a test is determined by how sensitive and specific it is.

Sensitivity measures the percentage of people with cancer correctly identified as having cancer. If a biomarker test is not sensitive enough, the results may suggest a person does not have cancer when in fact he or she does. This is called a “false negative.” If a test is highly sensitive, it will identify most people with the disease—that is, it will result in few false-negative results.

Specificity measures the percentage of people who do not have cancer correctly identified as being free of disease. If a biomarker test is not specific enough, the results may suggest a person has cancer when in fact he or she does not. This is called a “false positive.” If a test is highly specific, only a small number of people will test positive for the disease who do not have it—in other words, it will result in few false-positive results.

Positive Predictive Value is the percentage of patients who test positive for a disease who actually have the disease.

Negative Predictive Value is the percentage of patients who test negative for a disease who do not actually have the disease.

[Read how biomarkers are changing the face of cancer screening and diagnosis.]

Related Videos
Image of Dr. Fakih.
.Dr. Catherine Wu, chief of the Division of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and institute member at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, in Boston
Image of Doctor with blonde hair.
Dr. Katy Beckermann discusses how a Fotivda and Opdivo combination for renal cell carcinoma compared with Fotivda alone based on patient feedback.
Dr. Petros Grivas discusses what precautions should be considered when treating patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who have diabetes.
Dr. Debu Tripathy discussed the importance of understanding the distinctions between HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer.
Primary urothelial cancer has variable histologies, making its treatment complex, leading to varied outcomes with high rates of recurrence in patients.
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal is a medical oncologist, a professor of medicine and the Presidential Endowed Chair of Cancer Research at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, as well as director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and the Center of Investigational Therapeutics at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.
Image of Dr. Goy.
Image of bald man.
Related Content