4.7 Review

The Early Detection Research Network: 10-Year Outlook

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 60-67

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.184697

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network (EDRN) has made significant progress in developing an organized effort for discovering and validating biomarkers, building resources to support this effort, demonstrating the capabilities of several genomic and proteomic platforms, identifying candidate biomarkers, and undertaking multicenter validation studies. In its first 10 years, the EDRN went from a groundbreaking concept to an operational success. CONTENTS: The EDRN has established clear milestones for reaching a decision of go or no go during the biomarker development process. Milestones are established on the basis of statistical criteria, performance characteristics of biomarkers, and anticipated clinical use. More than 300 biomarkers have been stopped from further development. To date, the EDRN has prioritized more than 300 biomarkers and has completed more than 10 validation studies. The US Food and Drug Administration has now cleared 5 biomarkers for various clinical endpoints. SUMMARY: The EDRN today combines numerous collaborative and multidisciplinary investigator-initiated projects with a strong national administrative and data infrastructure. The EDRN has created a rigorous peer-review system that ensures that preliminary data-analytical, clinical, and quantitative-are of excellent quality. The process begins with an internal review with clinical, biostatistical, and analytical expertise. The project then receives external peer review and, finally, National Cancer Institute program staff review, resulting in an exceptionally robust and high-quality validation trial. (C) 2012 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