Validation of a biomarker-based medical product development tool or clinical test is an evidentiary process that must be tailored to the proposed use. Appropriate data and analyses are needed to demonstrate that the bio-marker meets analytical and clinical performance criteria consistent with favorable benefit: risk balance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group, BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools)Resource (Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration [US]; Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health [US], 2016-), available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791/> (last visited July 22, 2019).
2.
Id.
3.
Id.
4.
C.Leptak, J. P.Menetski, J. A.Wagner, J.Aubrecht, L.Brady, M.Brumfield, W. W.Chin, S.Hoffmann, G.Kelloff, G.Lavezzari, R.Ranganathan, J-M.Sauer, F. D.Sistare, T.Zabka, and D.Wholley, “What Evidence Do We Need for Biomarker Qualification?”Science Translational Medicine9, no. 417 (2017): eaal4599.
S. P.Hey, W. B.Feldman, E.Jung, E.D'Andrea, and A. S.Kesselheim, “Surrogate Endpoints and Drug Regulation: What is Needed to Clarify the Evidence,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 3 (2019): 381-387.
9.
S. P.Hey, E.D'Andrea, E.Jung, F.Tessema, J.Lou, B.Gyawali, and A. S.Kesselheim, “Challenges and Opportunities for Bio-marker Validation,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 3 (2019): 357-361.
10.
S. M.Teutsch, L. A.Bradley, G. E.Palomaki, J. E.Haddow, M.Piper, N.Calonge, W. D.Dotson, M. P.Douglas, and A.O.Berg on behalf of the EGAPP Working, “The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: Methods of the EGAPP Working Group,”Genetics in Medicine11, no. 1 (2009): 3-14; L.M.McShane and D. F.Hayes, “Publication of Tumor Marker Research Results: The Necessity for Complete and Transparent Reporting,”Journal of Clinical Oncology30, no. 34 (2012): 4223-4232; D. R.Parkinson, R. T.McCormack, S. M.Keating, S. I.Gutman, S. R.Hamilton, E. A.Mansfield, M. A.Piper, P. A.DeVerka, F. W.Frueh, J. M.Jessup, L. M.McShane, S. R.Tunis, C. C.Sigman, and G. J.Kelloff, “Evidence of Clinical Utility: An Unmet Need in Molecular Diagnostics for Cancer Patients,”Clinical Cancer Research20, no. 6 (2014): 1428-1444.
11.
“Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),”Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), available at <http://www.cms.gov/CLIA/05_CLIA_Brochures.asp> (last visited July 22, 2019).
12.
Supra note 1.
13.
Supra note 1.
14.
L. M.McShane, D. G.Altman, W.Sauerbrei, S. E.Taube, M.Gion, and G.M.Clark for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics, “REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK),”Journal of the National Cancer Institute97, no. 16 (2005): 1180-1184; D. G.Altman, L. M.McShane, W.Sauerbrei, and S. E.Taube, “Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration,”PLoS Medicine9, no. 5 (2012): e1001216.
15.
“EQUATOR Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research,”Equator Network, available at <http://www.equator-network.org/> (last visited July 22, 2019).
16.
R.Li and I.Sim, “How Clinical Trial Data Sharing Platforms Can Advance the Study of Biomarkers,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 3 (2019): 369-373.
R. M.Simon, S.Paik, and D. F.Hayes, “Use of Archived Specimens in Evaluation of Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers,”Journal of the National Cancer Institute101, no. 21 (2009): 1446-1452.
19.
C.Mavergames, D.Beecher, L.Becker, A.Last, and A.Ali, “Cochrane's Linked Data Project: How it can Advance our Understanding of Surrogate Endpoints,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 3 (2019): 374-380.
20.
J.Shrager, M.Shapiro, and W.Hoos, “Is Cancer Solvable? Towards Efficient and Ethical Biomedical Science,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 3 (2019): 362-368.
