BACKGROUND: Clinical proteomics presents great promise in biology and medicine because of its potential for improving our understanding of diseases at the molecular level and for detecting disease-related biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of therapeutic responses. To realize its full potential to improve clinical outcome for patients, proteomic studies have to be well designed, from biosample cohorts to data and statistical analyses. One key component in the biomarker development pipeline is the understanding of the regulatory science that evaluates diagnostic assay performance through rigorous analytical and clinical review criteria. CONTENT: The National Cancer Institute's Clinical Proteomic Technologies for Cancer (CPTC) initiative has proposed an intermediate preclinical "verification" step to close the gap between protein-based biomarker discovery and clinical qualification. In collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the CPTC network investigators recently published 2 mock submission review documents, first-of-their-kind educational materials that may help the scientific community interested in developing products for the clinic in understanding the likely analytical evaluation requirements for multiplex protein technology-based diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS: Building on this momentum, the CPTC continues with this report its collaboration with the FDA, as well as its interactions with the AACC and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to further the understanding of regulatory requirements for approving multiplex proteomic platform-based tests and analytically validating multiple analytes.
BACKGROUND: Clinical proteomics presents great promise in biology and medicine because of its potential for improving our understanding of diseases at the molecular level and for detecting disease-related biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of therapeutic responses. To realize its full potential to improve clinical outcome for patients, proteomic studies have to be well designed, from biosample cohorts to data and statistical analyses. One key component in the biomarker development pipeline is the understanding of the regulatory science that evaluates diagnostic assay performance through rigorous analytical and clinical review criteria. CONTENT: The National Cancer Institute's Clinical Proteomic Technologies for Cancer (CPTC) initiative has proposed an intermediate preclinical "verification" step to close the gap between protein-based biomarker discovery and clinical qualification. In collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the CPTC network investigators recently published 2 mock submission review documents, first-of-their-kind educational materials that may help the scientific community interested in developing products for the clinic in understanding the likely analytical evaluation requirements for multiplex protein technology-based diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS: Building on this momentum, the CPTC continues with this report its collaboration with the FDA, as well as its interactions with the AACC and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to further the understanding of regulatory requirements for approving multiplex proteomic platform-based tests and analytically validating multiple analytes.
Authors: Steven L Wood; Margaret A Knowles; Douglas Thompson; Peter J Selby; Rosamonde E Banks Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Steven J Skates; Michael A Gillette; Joshua LaBaer; Steven A Carr; Leigh Anderson; Daniel C Liebler; David Ransohoff; Nader Rifai; Marina Kondratovich; Živana Težak; Elizabeth Mansfield; Ann L Oberg; Ian Wright; Grady Barnes; Mitchell Gail; Mehdi Mesri; Christopher R Kinsinger; Henry Rodriguez; Emily S Boja Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Harald Mischak; John P A Ioannidis; Angel Argiles; Teresa K Attwood; Erik Bongcam-Rudloff; Mark Broenstrup; Aristidis Charonis; George P Chrousos; Christian Delles; Anna Dominiczak; Tomasz Dylag; Jochen Ehrich; Jesus Egido; Peter Findeisen; Joachim Jankowski; Robert W Johnson; Bruce A Julien; Tim Lankisch; Hing Y Leung; David Maahs; Fulvio Magni; Michael P Manns; Efthymios Manolis; Gert Mayer; Gerjan Navis; Jan Novak; Alberto Ortiz; Frederik Persson; Karlheinz Peter; Hans H Riese; Peter Rossing; Naveed Sattar; Goce Spasovski; Visith Thongboonkerd; Raymond Vanholder; Joost P Schanstra; Antonia Vlahou Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 4.686
Authors: Sarah C Shuck; Cu Nguyen; Yin Chan; Timothy O'Connor; Alexandra K Ciminera; Michael Kahn; John Termini Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 8.008
Authors: John P Frampton; Joshua B White; Arlyne B Simon; Michael Tsuei; Sophie Paczesny; Shuichi Takayama Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Emily S Boja; Thomas E Fehniger; Mark S Baker; György Marko-Varga; Henry Rodriguez Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 4.466