We thank Sauerbrei and Haeussler1 for their interest in our paper2 and their methodological comments. Our aim was to undertake these analyses and draw some conclusions from the available literature regarding the prognostic significance of BAG-1 in breast cancer, given multiple studies. We felt that this was important, particularly since BAG-1 is already included in multi-gene assays widely used as part of routine clinical practice and due to ongoing investigation into the possibility of inhibition of BAG-1 function as a potential therapeutic strategy. We did not use the supplementary information provided within the REMARK Explanation and Elaboration paper.3 We provided our interpretation whether details within the REMARK checklist were included in the papers and, as we highlighted, the literature reviewed was heterogeneous and with a range in study quality. We believe our conclusions were drawn with appropriate caveats to highlight this.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.Sauerbrei W, Haeussler T, et al. Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses’. Br. J. Cancer. 2018 doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0023-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Papadakis ES, et al. BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Br. J. Cancer. 2017;116:1585–1594. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med. 2012;10:51. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]