The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: issues and challenges
Open accessAbstract
Tremendous efforts have been made over the past few decades to discover novel cancer biomarkers for use in clinical practice. However, a striking discrepancy exists between the effort directed toward biomarker discovery and the number of markers that make it into clinical practice. One of the confounding issues in translating a novel discovery into clinical practice is that quite often the scientists working on biomarker discovery have limited knowledge of the analytical, diagnostic, and regulatory requirements for a clinical assay. This review provides an introduction to such considerations with the aim of generating more extensive discussion for study design, assay performance, and regulatory approval in the process of translating new proteomic biomarkers from discovery into cancer diagnostics. We first describe the analytical requirements for a robust clinical biomarker assay, including concepts of precision, trueness, specificity and analytical interference, and carryover. We next introduce the clinical considerations of diagnostic accuracy, receiver operating characteristic analysis, positive and negative predictive values, and clinical utility. We finish the review by describing components of the FDA approval process for protein-based biomarkers, including classification of biomarker assays as medical devices, analytical and clinical performance requirements, and the approval process workflow. While we recognize that the road from biomarker discovery, validation, and regulatory approval to the translation into the clinical setting could be long and difficult, the reward for patients, clinicians and scientists could be rather significant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework
(2001) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1067/mcp.2001.113989 · Cited by 6,762
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine
Zweig, M. H., & Campbell, G. (1993) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561 · Cited by 6,569
Estimation of the Youden Index and its Associated Cutoff Point
Fluss, R., Faraggi, D., & Reiser, B. (2005) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.200410135 · Cited by 2,608
Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry.
(1977) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-87-1-142_1 · Cited by 2,561
Park, H., Harris, S. M., Boldenow, E., Aronoff, D. M., Rea, M., Xi, C., & Loch‐Caruso, R. (2024) · American Journal of Reproductive Immunology · doi:10.1111/aji.13807 · Cited by 2,087
Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility
Rifai, N., Gillette, M. A., & Carr, S. A. (2006) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1235 · Cited by 1,867 · cited 2×
“For an in-depth discussion of these and other considerations, the reader is referred to several excellent published reviews [4,6,8,10,13-16].”
BackgroundStatistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine
Zhou, X., Obuchowski, N. A., & McClish, D. K. (2011) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470906514 · Cited by 1,784
Perkins, N. J., & Schisterman, E. F. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj063 · Cited by 1,759
Phases of Biomarker Development for Early Detection of Cancer
Pepe, M. S., Etzioni, R., Feng, Z., Potter, J. D., Thompson, M. L., Thornquist, M., Winget, M., & Yasui, Y. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.14.1054 · Cited by 1,686
Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine
Zhou, X., Obuchowski, N. A., & McClish, D. K. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470317082 · Cited by 1,165
Cited by
Extracellular vesicles in cancer — implications for future improvements in cancer care
Xu, R., Rai, A., Chen, M., Suwakulsiri, W., Greening, D. W., & Simpson, R. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0036-9 · Cited by 1,445
Precision diagnostics: moving towards protein biomarker signatures of clinical utility in cancer
Borrebaeck, C. A. K. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.153 · Cited by 435
Vidova, V., & Spacil, Z. (2017) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.aca.2017.01.059 · Cited by 352
Dysregulation of lipids in Alzheimer’s disease and their role as potential biomarkers
Wong, M. W., Braidy, N., Poljak, A., Pickford, R., Thambisetty, M., & Sachdev, P. S. (2017) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.01.008 · Cited by 223
Clinical potential of mass spectrometry-based proteogenomics
Zhang, B., Whiteaker, J. R., Hoofnagle, A. N., Baird, G. S., Rodland, K. D., & Paulovich, A. G. (2019) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0135-7 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Füzéry, A. K., Levin, J., Chan, M. M., & Chan, D. W.
- Venue
- Clinical Proteomics
- Published
- 2013-10-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-13
- ISSN
- 1542-6416 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-0275
- OpenAlex
- W2156216776
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 59
- FWCI
- 16.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: issues and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1559-0275-10-13
- The paper
- Füzéry, A. K., Levin, J., Chan, M. M., & Chan, D. W. (2013). Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: issues and challenges. Clinical Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1559-0275-10-13
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.