ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025
Indirect clinical validation for predictive biomarkers in oncology: International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) Position Paper.
Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proteomic Biomarker Discovery in Breast Cancer: Advances, Challenges, and Translational Prospects.Journal of biochemical and molecular toxicology · 2026Review
- The role of the WD40-repeat protein family in cancer.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Harmonising ctDNA Measurement in Haematological Malignancies: Traceability, Commutability and Reporting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- "HER2-Low" and the Challenge of Repurposing Legacy HER2 IHC Biomarker Assays.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Targeting regulatory T cell plasticity in gastric cancer: a unified bimodal model and precision immunotherapy paradigm: a hypothesis-generating review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validation of biomarker assays is mandatory not only for their applications in clinical trials but also for their subsequent transfer to clinical laboratories in routine clinical care. There are two critical components relevant to their transfer to clinical practice: regulatory oversight and methodology transfer. Both aspects are simplified where companion diagnostic (CDx) assays relevant to a given indication are being implemented in clinical laboratories. However, when laboratory developed tests (LDTs) are being used either because CDx is not available or because LDT is preferred, both aspects need special consideration from regulatory agencies as well as clinical laboratories. The key component that links these two aspects is evidence of validation of the new LDTs. For predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology, clinical validation is feasible only in clinical trials. This approach is not available or feasible to clinical laboratories that develop LDTs. While clinical laboratories routinely perform technical/analytical validation, depending on the type of biomarker, this may not be sufficient to provide evidence of the LDT's clinical relevance. Laboratories must perform and document their assessment for the need for indirect clinical validation. When indirect clinical validation is required, it must be performed according to existing guidelines for this purpose. This paper provides expert consensus guidance and recommendations on how to assess for the need for indirect clinical validation and how to perform indirect clinical validation where required. This paper also provides a conceptual framework to regulatory agencies for determining requirements for validation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.