Biomarkers are the pillars of precision medicine and are delivering on expectations of molecular, quantitative health. These features have made clinical decisions more precise and personalized, but require a high bar for validation. Biomarkers have improved health outcomes in a few areas such as cancer, pharmacogenetics, and safety. Burgeoning big data research infrastructure, the internet of things, and increased patient participation will accelerate discovery in the many areas that have not yet realized the full potential of biomarkers for precision health. Here we review themes of biomarker discovery, current implementations of biomarkers for precision health, and future opportunities and challenges for biomarker discovery.
Impact statement
Precision medicine evolved because of the understanding that human disease is molecularly driven and is highly variable across patients. This understanding has made biomarkers, a diverse class of biological measurements, more relevant for disease diagnosis, monitoring, and selection of treatment strategy. Biomarkers’ impact on precision medicine can be seen in cancer, pharmacogenomics, and safety. The successes in these cases suggest many more applications for biomarkers and a greater impact for precision medicine across the spectrum of human disease. The authors assess the status of biomarker-guided medical practice by analyzing themes for biomarker discovery, reviewing the impact of these markers in the clinic, and highlight future and ongoing challenges for biomarker discovery. This work is timely and relevant, as the molecular, quantitative approach of precision medicine is spreading to many disease indications.
StrimbuKTavelJA.What are biomarkers?Curr Opin HIV AIDS2010;
5:463–6
2.
CollinsFSVarmusH.A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med2015;
372:793–5
3.
CollinsDCSundarRLimJSJYapTA.Towards precision medicine in the clinic: from biomarker discovery to novel therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol Sci2017;
38:25–40
4.
WangEChoWCSWongSCCLiuS.Disease biomarkers for precision medicine: challenges and future opportunities. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics2017;
15:57–8
5.
AltmanRB.Personal genomic measurements: the opportunity for information integration. Clin Pharmacol Ther2013;
93:21–3
6.
Larry JamesonJLongoDL.Precision medicine—personalized, problematic, and promising. Obstet Gynecol Surv2015;
70:612–4
7.
RobinetteSLLindonJCNicholsonJK.Statistical spectroscopic tools for biomarker discovery and systems medicine. Anal Chem2013;
85:5297–303
8.
KohnECAzadNAnnunziataCDhamoonASWhitelyG.Proteomics as a tool for biomarker discovery. Dis Markers2007;
23:411–7
9.
YurttasBPHu-SeligerTElashoffMChodroffRLeeJACoppermanAB.Whole genome sequencing for female infertility biomarker discovery. Fertility and Sterility2013;
100:S324
10.
XueYWilcoxWR.Changing paradigm of cancer therapy: precision medicine by next-generation sequencing. Cancer Biol Med2016;
13:12–8
11.
DirksRAMStunnenbergHGMarksH.Genome-wide epigenomic profiling for biomarker discovery. Clin Epigenetics2016;
8:122
12.
ZhaoY-YChengX-LLinR-CWeiF.Lipidomics applications for disease biomarker discovery in mammal models. Biomark Med2015;
9:153–68
13.
SeoaneJDe Mattos-ArrudaL.The challenge of intratumour heterogeneity in precision medicine. J Intern Med2014;
276:41–51
14.
HsiehJJChengEH.A braided cancer river connects tumor heterogeneity and precision medicine. Clin Transl Med2016;
5:42
15.
FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource.Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration; Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2016. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791 (accessed 27 November 2017)
16.
ChamblissABChanDW.Precision medicine: from pharmacogenomics to pharmacoproteomics. Clin Proteomics2016;
1313:25
17.
AmurSLaVangeLZinehIBuckmanGSWoodcockJ.Biomarker qualification: toward a multiple stakeholder framework for biomarker development, regulatory acceptance, and utilization. Clin Pharmacol Ther2015;
98:34–46
18.
TamboliCPDomanDBPatelA.Current and future role of biomarkers in Crohn's disease risk assessment and treatment. Clin Exp Gastroenterol2011;
4:127–14.
19.
MuraroALemanskeRFJrHellingsPWAkdisCABieberTCasaleTBJutelMOngPYPoulsenLKSchmid-GrendelmeirPSimonHSeysSFAgacheI.Precision medicine in patients with allergic diseases: airway diseases and atopic dermatitis—PRACTALL document of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol2016;
137:1347–58
20.
FerrandoMBagnascoDVarricchiG. Personalized medicine in allergy. Allergy2017;9:15–24
21.
KatzR.Biomarkers and surrogate markers: an FDA perspective. NeuroRx2004;
1:189–95
22.
GuneyEMencheJORVidalMBarabasiA.Network-based in silico drug efficacy screening. Nat Commun2016;
7:1–13
23.
GuoJLiuHZhengJ.SynLethDB: synthetic lethality database toward discovery of selective and sensitive anticancer drug targets. Nucleic Acids Res2016;
44:D1011–7
24.
ThompsonNAdamsDJRanzaniM.Synthetic lethality: emerging targets and opportunities in melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res2017;
30:183–93
25.
FangBMehranRJHeymachJVSwisherSG.Predictive biomarkers in precision medicine and drug development against lung cancer. Chin J Cancer2015;
34:1–15
26.
FlemingTRPowersJH.Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med2012;
31:2973–84
27.
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group.
Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther2001;
69:89–95
28.
EchtDSLiebsonPRMitchellLBPetersRWObias-MannoDBarkerAHArensbergDBakerAFriedmanLGreeneHLHutherMRichardsonDW.Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med1991;
324:781–8
29.
SallowaySSperlingRFoxNCBlennowKKlunkWRaskindMSabbaghMHonigLSPorsteinssonAPFerrisSReichertMKetterNNejadnikBGuenzierVMiloslavskyMWangDLuYLullJTudorICLiuEGrundmanMYuenEBlackRBrashearHR.Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med2014;
370:322–33
30.
MattssonNCarrilloMCDeanRADevousMDSrNikolchevaTPesiniPSalterHPotterWZSperlingRSBatemanRJBainLJLiuE.Revolutionizing Alzheimer's disease and clinical trials through biomarkers. Alzheimers Dement (Amst)2015;
1:412–9
31.
DesaiMStockbridgeNTempleR. Blood pressure as an example of a biomarker that functions as a surrogate. AAPS J 2006;8:E146–52
32.
Christine M Micheel and John R Ball (eds). Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.
33.
Hayashi K, Masuda S, Kimura H. Analyzing global trends of biomarker use in drug interventional clinical studies. Drug Discov Ther 2012;6:102–7
34.
PearsonSDOllendorfDAColbyJA;
The ICER Alzheimer's Diagnostics Policy Development Group. Biomarker tests for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: generating evidence to inform insurance coverage determinations. Alzheimers Dement2013;
9:745–52
35.
ChanTAWolchokJDSnyderA.Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med2014;
373:1984
36.
WangEZouJZamanNBeitelLKTrifiroMPallourasM.Cancer systems biology in the genome sequencing era: part 1, dissecting and modeling of tumor clones and their networks. Semin Cancer Biol2013;
23:279–85
37.
WangEZouJZamanNBeitelLKTrifiroMPallourasM.Cancer systems biology in the genome sequencing era: part 2, evolutionary dynamics of tumor clonal networks and drug resistance. Semin Cancer Biol2013;
23:286–92
38.
BallmanKV.Biomarker: predictive or prognostic?J Clin Oncol2015;
33:3968–71
39.
BaselgaJCortésJKimS-BImSHeggRImYRomanLPedriniJLPienkowskiTKnottAClarkEBenyunesMCRossGSwainSM; CLEOPATRA Study Group.
Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med2012;
366:109–19
40.
ChabanonRMPedreroMLefebvreCMarabelleASoraJPostel-VinayS.Mutational landscape and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockers. Clin Cancer Res2016;
22:4309–21
41.
ShienKPapadimitrakopoulouVAWistubaII.Predictive biomarkers of response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer2016;
99:79–87
42.
Maleki VarekiSGarrigósCDuranI.Biomarkers of response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2017;
116:116–24
43.
KarapetisCSKhambata-FordSJonkerDJO'callaghanCJTuDTebbuttNCSimesRJChalchalHShapiroJDRobitailleSPriceTJShepherdLAuHLangerCMooreMJZalcbergJR.K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med2008;
359:1757–65
44.
XuC-FJohnsonTWangXCarpenterCGravesAPWarrenLXueZKingKSFraserDJStinnettSBrileyLPMitricaISpraggsCFNelsonMRTadaHDu BoisAPowlesTKaplowitzNPanditeLN.HLA-B*57:01 confers susceptibility to pazopanib-associated liver injury in patients with cancer. Clin Cancer Res2016;
22:1371–7
45.
PrattVMcLeodHDeanLMalheiroARubinsteinW. In: Pratt V, McLeod H, Dean L, Malheiro A, Rubinstein W (eds). SourceMedical Genetics Summaries. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2012. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28520367 (accessed 27 November 2017)
46.
LiXZhaoZSunSS.Association of human leukocyte antigen variants and allopurinol-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: a meta-analysis.Am J Health Syst Pharm2017;
74:e183–92
47.
WeiCYMichael LeeMTChenYT.Pharmacogenomics of adverse drug reactions: implementing personalized medicine. Hum Mol Genet2012;
21:R58–65
48.
ScottSASangkuhlKSteinCMScottSAHulotJSMegaJLRodenDMKelinTESabatineMSJohnsonJAShuldinerAR.Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy: 2013 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther2013;
94:317–23
MoazeniSCadeirasMYangEHDengMCNguyenK.Anthracycline induced cardiotoxicity: biomarkers and ‘Omics’ technology in the era of patient specific care. Clin Transl Med 2017;
6:17
51.
BowesJBrownAJHamonJJarolimerWSridharAWaldronGWhitebreadS.Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;
11:1–14
52.
HayMThomasDWCraigheadJLEconomidesCRosenthalJ.Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 2014;
32:40–51
53.
ZhangCHongHMendrickDLTangYChengF.Biomarker-based drug safety assessment in the age of systems pharmacology: from foundational to regulatory science. Biomark Med 2015;
9:1241–52
54.
ChengFLiWWangXZhouYWuZShenJTangY.Adverse drug events: database construction and in silico prediction. J Chem Inf Model 2013;
53:744–52
55.
ChengFLiWWuZWangXZhangCLiJLiuGTangY.Prediction of polypharmacological profiles of drugs by the integration of chemical, side effect, and therapeutic space. J Chem Inf Model 2013;
53:753–62
56.
HurJLiuZTongWLaaksoneRBaiJPF.Drug-induced rhabdomyolysis: from systems pharmacology analysis to biochemical flux. Chem Res Toxicol 2014;
27:421–32
57.
HurJGuoAYLohWYFeldmanELBaiJPF.Integrated systems pharmacology analysis of clinical drug-induced peripheral neuropathy. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2014;
3:e114–1
58.
HurJZhaoCBaiJPF.Systems pharmacological analysis of drugs inducing Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Chem Res Toxicol 2015;
28:927–34
59.
MelasINSakellaropoulosTIorioFAlexopoulosLGLohWLauffenburgerDASaez-RodriguezJBaiJPF.Identification of drug-specific pathways based on gene expression data: application to drug induced lung injury. Integr Biol (Camb) 2015;
7:904–20
60.
SakellaropoulosTHerodTJAlexopoulosLGBaiJPF.Computed biological relations among five select treatment-related organ/tissue toxicities. Chem Res Toxicol 2016;
29:914–23
61.
RellingMVKleinTE.CPIC: clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium of the pharmacogenomics research network. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;
89:464–7
62.
HayesCNImamuraMAikataHChayamaK.Genetics of IL28B and HCV-response to infection and treatment. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;
9:406–17
63.
Whirl-CarrilloMMcDonaghEMHebertJMGongLSangkuhlKThornCFAltmanRBKleinTE.Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;
92:414–7
64.
GiacominiKMYeeSWMushirodaTWeinshilboumRMRatainMJKuboM.Genome-wide association studies of drug response and toxicity: an opportunity for genome medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2017;
16:70
65.
BelooseskyYNenaydenkoONevoRFGAdunskyAWeisA.Rates, variability, and associated factors of polypharmacy in nursing home patients. Clin Interv Aging 2013;
8:1585–90
66.
McMahonFJ.Clinically useful genetic markers of antidepressant response: how do we get there from here?Am J Psychiatry 2015;
172:697–9
67.
AllenNSudlowCDowneyPPeakmanTDaneshJElliotPGallacherJGreenJMathewsPPellJSporsenTCollinsR.UK Biobank: current status and what it means for epidemiology. Health Policy Technol 2012;
1:123–6
68.
WeitzelKWCavallariLHLeskoLJ.Preemptive panel-based pharmacogenetic testing: the time is now. Pharm Res 2017;
34:1551–5
69.
SitapatiAKimHBerkovichBMarmorRSinghSEl-KarehRClayBOhno-MachadoL.Integrated precision medicine: the role of electronic health records in delivering personalized treatment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 2017;
9:e1378
70.
ScottMG.When do new biomarkers make economic sense?Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2010;
242:90–5
71.
PaulovichAGWhiteakerJRHoofnagleANWangP.The interface between biomarker discovery and clinical validation: the tar pit of the protein biomarker pipeline. Proteomics Clin Appl 2008;
2:1386–402
72.
HemingwayHHenrikssonMChenRDamantJFitzpatrickNAbramsKHingoraniAJanzonMShipleyMFederGKeoghBStenestrandUMcAllisterKKaskiJ-CTimmisAPalmerSSculpherM. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for the prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary revascularisation: a systematic review and decision model. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1–151 (see also iii–iv).
73.
LeeSAWSposatoLAHachinskiVCiprianoLE.Cost-effectiveness of cerebrospinal biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Alz Res Therapy 2017;
9:1–14
74.
TharianiRVeenstraDLCarlsonJJGarrisonLPRamseyS.Paying for personalized care: cancer biomarkers and comparative effectiveness. Mol Oncol 2012;
6:260–6
75.
KoffijbergHvan ZaaneBMoonsKGM.From accuracy to patient outcome and cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers: an exemplary modelling study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;
13:12
76.
KesselheimASTreasureCLJoffeS.Biomarker-defined subsets of common diseases: policy and economic implications of orphan drug act coverage. PLoS Med 2017;
14:e1002190–9
77.
AlyassATurcotteMMeyreD.From big data analysis to personalized medicine for all: challenges and opportunities. BMC Med Genomics 2015;
8:613
78.
HernandezWGamazonERAquino-MichaelsKPatelSO'brienTJHarralsonAFKittlesRABarbourATuckMMcIntoshSDDouglasJNNicolaeDCavallariLHPereraMA.Ethnicity-specific pharmacogenetics: the case of warfarin in African Americans. Pharmacogenomics J 2014;
14:223–8
79.
LiXDunnJSalinsDZhouGZhouWRoseSMSPerelmanDColbertERungeRRegoSSonechaRDattaSMcLaughlinTSnyderMP.Digital health: tracking physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. PLOS Biol 2017;
15:e2001402
80.
WishartDSKnoxCGuoACShrivastavaSHassanaliMStothardPChangZWoolseyJ.DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;
34:D668–72
81.
HsiaoY-CChuLJChenJ-TYehTYuJ.Proteomic profiling of the cancer cell secretome: informing clinical research. Expert Rev Proteomics2017;
14:737–56
82.
SchorkNJ. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature2015;
520:609–11
83.
ScuffhamPANiklesJMitchellGKYellandMJVineNPoulosCJPillansPIBashfordGdel MarCSchluterPJGlasziouP.Using N-of-1 trials to improve patient management and save costs. J Gen Intern Med 2010;
25:906–13
84.
RedigAJJännePA.Basket trials and the evolution of clinical trial design in an era of genomic medicine. J Clin Oncol2015;
33:975–7.
85.
Lopez-ChavezAThomasARajanARaffeldMMorrowBKellyRCarterCAGuhaUKillianKLauCCAbdullaevZXiLPackSMeltzerPSCorlessCLSandlerABeadlingCWarrickALiewehrDJSteinbergSMBermanADoyleASzaboEWangYGiacconeG.Molecular profiling and targeted therapy for advanced thoracic malignancies: a biomarker-derived, multiarm, multihistology phase II basket trial. J Clin Oncol 2015;
33:1000–7
86.
McNeilC.NCI-MATCH launch highlights new trial design in precision-medicine era. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;
107:djv193
87.
TorousJStaplesPShanahanMLinCPeckPKeshavanMOnnelaJ.Utilizing a personal smartphone custom app to assess the patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder. JMIR Ment Health 2015;
2:e8
88.
TorousJKiangMVLormeJOnnelaJ.New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research. JMIR Ment Health 2016;
3:e16
89.
NoorAMHolmbergLGillettCGrigoriadisA.Big data: the challenge for small research groups in the era of cancer genomics. Br J Cancer 2015;
113:1405–12
90.
ShaikhARButteAJSchullySDDaltonWSKhouryMJHesseBW.Collaborative biomedicine in the age of big data: the case of cancer. J Med Internet Res 2014;
16:e101
91.
WilksCClineMSWeilerEDiehkansMCraftBMartinCMurphyDPierceHBlackJNelsonDLitzingerBHattonTMaltbieLAinsworthMAllenPRosewoodLMitchellESmithBWarnerJGroboskeJTelcHWilsonDSanfrodBSchmidtHHaussierDMaltbieD. The Cancer Genomics Hub (CGHub): overcoming cancer through the power of torrential data. Database (Oxford).2014;pii: bau093
92.
LymanGHMosesHL. Biomarker tests for molecularly targeted therapies—the key to unlocking precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2016;375:4–6
93.
ConsortiumTGP.A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015;
526:68–74
94.
GannaAIngelssonE.5 year mortality predictors in 498 103 UK Biobank participants: a prospective population-based study. Lancet 2015;
386:533–40
95.
NtukUEGillJMackayDFSattarN. Ethnic-specific obesity cutoffs for diabetes risk: cross-sectional study of 490,288 UK Biobank participants. Diabetes Care2014;
37:2500–7
96.
WainLVShrineNMillerSJacksonVENtaliaIArtigasMSBillingtonCKKheirallahAKAllenRCookJPProbertKObeidatMBosseYHaoKPostmaDSParePDRamasamyAMagiRMihailovEReinmassEMelenEO'connellJFrangouEDelaneauOFreemanCPetkovaDMcCarthyMSayersIDeloukasPHubbardRPavordIHansellALThomsonNCZegginiEMorrisAPMarchiniJStrachanDPTobinMDHallIP.Novel insights into the genetics of smoking behaviour, lung function, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (UK BiLEVE): a genetic association study in UK Biobank. Lancet Respir Med 2015;
3:769–81
97.
TakagiSIwaiNYamauchiRKojimaSYasunoSBabaTTerashimaMTsutsumiYSuzukiSMoriiIHanaiSOnoKBabaSTomoikeHKawamuraAMiyazakiSNonogiHGotoY.Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 gene is a risk factor for myocardial infarction in Japanese men. Hypertens Res 2002;
25:677–81
98.
SmithGDEbrahimS. Mendelian randomization: genetic variants as instruments for strengthening causal inference in observational studies. In: Weinstein M, Vaupel JW, Wachter KW (eds) Biological Surveys. National Research Council (US) Committee on Advances in Collecting and Utilizing Biological Indicators and Genetic Information in Social Science Surveys. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62433/ (accessed 27 November 2017)
99.
VenetDDumontJEDetoursV.Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLoS Comput Biol 2011;
7:e1002240
100.
LiJLenferinkAEGDengYCollinsCCuiQPurisimaEOO'conner-McCourtMDWangE.Identification of high-quality cancer prognostic markers and metastasis network modules. Nat Commun 2010;
1:34–8
101.
GaoSTibicheCZouJZamanNTrifiroMO'connor-McCourtMWangE.Identification and construction of combinatory cancer hallmark-based gene signature sets to predict recurrence and chemotherapy benefit in stage ii colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncol 2015;
2:37–45
102.
ArmontroutJTorousJFisherMDroginEGutheilT.Mobile mental health: navigating new rules and regulations for digital tools. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2016;
18:91
