John P A Ioannidis1, Patrick M M Bossuyt2. 1. Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, and Statistics, and the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA; jioannid@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The large, expanding literature on biomarkers is characterized by almost ubiquitous significant results, with claims about the potential importance, but few of these discovered biomarkers are used in routine clinical care. CONTENT: The pipeline of biomarker development includes several specific stages: discovery, validation, clinical translation, evaluation, implementation (and, in the case of nonutility, deimplementation). Each of these stages can be plagued by problems that cause failures of the overall pipeline. Some problems are nonspecific challenges for all biomedical investigation, while others are specific to the peculiarities of biomarker research. Discovery suffers from poor methods and incomplete and selective reporting. External independent validation is limited. Selection for clinical translation is often shaped by nonrational choices. Evaluation is sparse and the clinical utility of many biomarkers remains unknown. The regulatory environment for biomarkers remains weak and guidelines can reach biased or divergent recommendations. Removing inefficient or even harmful biomarkers that have been entrenched in clinical care can meet with major resistance. SUMMARY: The current biomarker pipeline is too prone to failures. Consideration of clinical needs should become a starting point for the development of biomarkers. Improvements can include the use of more stringent methodology, better reporting, larger collaborative studies, careful external independent validation, preregistration, rigorous systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, pivotal randomized trials, and implementation and deimplementation studies. Incentives should be aligned toward delivering useful biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: The large, expanding literature on biomarkers is characterized by almost ubiquitous significant results, with claims about the potential importance, but few of these discovered biomarkers are used in routine clinical care. CONTENT: The pipeline of biomarker development includes several specific stages: discovery, validation, clinical translation, evaluation, implementation (and, in the case of nonutility, deimplementation). Each of these stages can be plagued by problems that cause failures of the overall pipeline. Some problems are nonspecific challenges for all biomedical investigation, while others are specific to the peculiarities of biomarker research. Discovery suffers from poor methods and incomplete and selective reporting. External independent validation is limited. Selection for clinical translation is often shaped by nonrational choices. Evaluation is sparse and the clinical utility of many biomarkers remains unknown. The regulatory environment for biomarkers remains weak and guidelines can reach biased or divergent recommendations. Removing inefficient or even harmful biomarkers that have been entrenched in clinical care can meet with major resistance. SUMMARY: The current biomarker pipeline is too prone to failures. Consideration of clinical needs should become a starting point for the development of biomarkers. Improvements can include the use of more stringent methodology, better reporting, larger collaborative studies, careful external independent validation, preregistration, rigorous systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, pivotal randomized trials, and implementation and deimplementation studies. Incentives should be aligned toward delivering useful biomarkers.
Authors: Yihan Sun; Jae Hyun Kim; Kiran Vangipuram; Daniel F Hayes; Ellen M L Smith; Larisa Yeomans; N Lynn Henry; Kathleen A Stringer; Daniel L Hertz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Teresa Torres Moral; Albert Sanchez-Niubo; Anna Monistrol-Mula; Chiara Gerardi; Rita Banzi; Paula Garcia; Jacques Demotes-Mainard; Josep Maria Haro Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Anudeep Yekula; Koushik Muralidharan; Keiko M Kang; Lan Wang; Leonora Balaj; Bob S Carter Journal: Methods Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Anudeep Yekula; Koushik Muralidharan; Zachary S Rosh; Anna E Youngkin; Keiko M Kang; Leonora Balaj; Bob S Carter Journal: Adv Biosyst Date: 2020-06-02
Authors: Sarah J Parker; Lulu Chen; Weston Spivia; Georgia Saylor; Chunhong Mao; Vidya Venkatraman; Ronald J Holewinski; Mitra Mastali; Rakhi Pandey; Grace Athas; Guoqiang Yu; Qin Fu; Dana Troxlair; Richard Vander Heide; David Herrington; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Yue Wang Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Maartje Massen; Kim Lommen; Kim A D Wouters; Johan Vandersmissen; Wim van Criekinge; James G Herman; Veerle Melotte; Leo J Schouten; Manon van Engeland; Kim M Smits Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 7.259
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