4.7 Article

The Journey to Regulation of Protein-Based Multiplex Quantitative Assays

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 57, Issue 4, Pages 560-567

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.156034

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Waters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.(C) 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available