Emina E Torlakovic, Raed Al Dieri, Tony Badrick, Zongming Eric Chen, Carol C Cheung, Zandra Deans, Andrew Dodson, Francesca Fenizia, Hiroshi Kijima, Joerg Maas, Antonio Martinez, Søren Nielsen, Simon Patton, Etienne Rouleau, Peter Schirmacher, Tanuja Shet, Tracy Stockley, Nicola Normanno
{"title":"Indirect clinical validation for predictive biomarkers in oncology: International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) Position Paper.","authors":"Emina E Torlakovic, Raed Al Dieri, Tony Badrick, Zongming Eric Chen, Carol C Cheung, Zandra Deans, Andrew Dodson, Francesca Fenizia, Hiroshi Kijima, Joerg Maas, Antonio Martinez, Søren Nielsen, Simon Patton, Etienne Rouleau, Peter Schirmacher, Tanuja Shet, Tracy Stockley, Nicola Normanno","doi":"10.1007/s00428-025-04169-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Validation of biomarker assays is mandatory not only for their applications in clinical trials but also for their subsequent transfer to clinical laboratories in routine clinical care. There are two critical components relevant to their transfer to clinical practice: regulatory oversight and methodology transfer. Both aspects are simplified where companion diagnostic (CDx) assays relevant to a given indication are being implemented in clinical laboratories. However, when laboratory developed tests (LDTs) are being used either because CDx is not available or because LDT is preferred, both aspects need special consideration from regulatory agencies as well as clinical laboratories. The key component that links these two aspects is evidence of validation of the new LDTs. For predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology, clinical validation is feasible only in clinical trials. This approach is not available or feasible to clinical laboratories that develop LDTs. While clinical laboratories routinely perform technical/analytical validation, depending on the type of biomarker, this may not be sufficient to provide evidence of the LDT's clinical relevance. Laboratories must perform and document their assessment for the need for indirect clinical validation. When indirect clinical validation is required, it must be performed according to existing guidelines for this purpose. This paper provides expert consensus guidance and recommendations on how to assess for the need for indirect clinical validation and how to perform indirect clinical validation where required. This paper also provides a conceptual framework to regulatory agencies for determining requirements for validation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04169-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Validation of biomarker assays is mandatory not only for their applications in clinical trials but also for their subsequent transfer to clinical laboratories in routine clinical care. There are two critical components relevant to their transfer to clinical practice: regulatory oversight and methodology transfer. Both aspects are simplified where companion diagnostic (CDx) assays relevant to a given indication are being implemented in clinical laboratories. However, when laboratory developed tests (LDTs) are being used either because CDx is not available or because LDT is preferred, both aspects need special consideration from regulatory agencies as well as clinical laboratories. The key component that links these two aspects is evidence of validation of the new LDTs. For predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology, clinical validation is feasible only in clinical trials. This approach is not available or feasible to clinical laboratories that develop LDTs. While clinical laboratories routinely perform technical/analytical validation, depending on the type of biomarker, this may not be sufficient to provide evidence of the LDT's clinical relevance. Laboratories must perform and document their assessment for the need for indirect clinical validation. When indirect clinical validation is required, it must be performed according to existing guidelines for this purpose. This paper provides expert consensus guidance and recommendations on how to assess for the need for indirect clinical validation and how to perform indirect clinical validation where required. This paper also provides a conceptual framework to regulatory agencies for determining requirements for validation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.