肿瘤学预测生物标志物的间接临床验证:国际病理质量网络(IQN路径)立场文件。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
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":"肿瘤学预测生物标志物的间接临床验证:国际病理质量网络(IQN路径)立场文件。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

生物标志物检测的验证是强制性的,不仅对其在临床试验中的应用,而且对其随后在常规临床护理中转移到临床实验室也是如此。将其转移到临床实践有两个关键组成部分:监管监督和方法转移。当临床实验室正在实施与特定适应症相关的伴随诊断(CDx)测定时,这两个方面都得到了简化。然而,当实验室开发的测试(LDTs)由于CDx无法获得或因为LDT是首选而被使用时,监管机构和临床实验室都需要特别考虑这两个方面。将这两个方面联系起来的关键组成部分是新的最不发达国家得到证实的证据。对于肿瘤学中的预测和预后生物标志物,临床验证仅在临床试验中可行。对于开发ldt的临床实验室来说,这种方法是不可用或不可行的。虽然临床实验室通常根据生物标志物的类型进行技术/分析验证,但这可能不足以提供LDT临床相关性的证据。实验室必须执行并记录间接临床验证所需的评估。当需要间接临床验证时,必须根据现有的指南进行。本文就如何评估间接临床验证的必要性以及如何在需要时进行间接临床验证提供了专家共识指导和建议。本文还为监管机构提供了一个概念性框架,以确定肿瘤学中预测和预后生物标志物的验证要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Indirect clinical validation for predictive biomarkers in oncology: International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) Position Paper.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Virchows Archiv
Virchows Archiv 医学-病理学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信