Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Oct 26;103(9):1313-7.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605910. Epub 2010 Oct 5.

Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation for application in clinical trials of anticancer drugs

Affiliations
Review

Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation for application in clinical trials of anticancer drugs

J Cummings et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Clinical development of new anticancer drugs can be compromised by a lack of qualified biomarkers. An indispensable component to successful biomarker qualification is assay validation, which is also a regulatory requirement. In order to foster flexible yet rigorous biomarker method validation, the fit-for-purpose approach has recently been developed. This minireview focuses on many of the basic issues surrounding validation of biomarker assays utilised in clinical trials. It also provides an overview on strategies to validate each of the five categories that define the majority of biomarker assays.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation. The fit-for-purpose approach to biomarker method validation tailors the burden of proof required to validate an assay to take account of both the nature of technology utilised and position of the biomarker in the spectrum between research tool and clinical end point. Ultimately, fit-for-purpose requires an assessment of the technical ability of the assay to deliver against the predefined purpose. Abbreviations: IHC=immunohistochemistry; LBA=ligand binding assay; MS=mass spectrometry; PD=pharmacodynamic; POM=proof of mechanism; POC=proof of concept.

References

    1. Boulanger B, Chiap P, Dewe W, Crommen J, Hubert P (2003) An analysis of the SFSTP guide on validation of chromatographic bioanalytical methods: progress and limitations. J Pharm Biomed Anal 32: 753–765 - PubMed
    1. Boulanger B, Rozet E, Moonen F, Rudaz S, Hubert P (2009) A risk-based analysis of the AAPS conference report on quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 877: 2235–2243 - PubMed
    1. Carden CP, Sarker D, Postel-Vinay S, Yap TA, Attard G, Banerji U, Garrett MD, Thomas GV, Workman P, Kaye SB, de Bono JS (2010) Can molecular biomarker-based patient selection in phase I trials accelerate anticancer drug development? Drug Discov Today 15: 88–97 - PubMed
    1. Cummings J, Ranson M, Butt F, Moore D, Dive C (2007) Qualification of M30 and M65 ELISAs as surrogate biomarkers of cell death: long term antigen stability in cancer patient plasma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 60: 921–924 - PubMed
    1. Cummings J, Ward TH, Greystoke A, Ranson M, Dive C (2008) Biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development. Br J Pharmacol 153: 646–656 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms