ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Milestone to Ensure Safety and Efficacy of Companion Diagnostic (CDx) That Support Treatment Decisions in Cancer Patients.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anatomy of a Setback: A Taxonomy of Clinical Trial Failures in Alzheimer's Disease and Strategic Lessons for the Future.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Review
- Chimeric Anti-Glypican 1 Antibodies Exert Antitumor Activities in Xenograft Models of Lung and Pancreatic Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As demand for biomarker-based companion diagnostics (CDx) tests in clinical oncology of precision medicine increases, a clear understanding of the regulatory framework (especially analytical and clinical performance) is imperative to ensure the safety and efficacy of CDx in enhancing patient quality of life and aiding in treatment decisions. This study analyzes the regulatory policies and approval reports in major countries and identifies regulatory checklists for the pre- and post-marketing analytical and clinical performance to ensure safety and efficacy of CDx. It categorizes the pre-marketing analysis into four commonly used techniques, IHC, FISH, PCR, and NGS, reflecting the diversity of CDx types. All analyses are grounded in the latest regulations and guidelines. The developed checklists were subjected to feasibility assessment by industry experts. Our analysis revealed that there are differences in the pre- and post-marketing regulatory frameworks for CDx, reflecting unique characteristics of each country. In particular, differences were observed in the safety and efficacy assessment methods applied to the platform based on technological principle. Evidence-based checklists are established, which support manufacturers in implementing efficient practices and creating systematic regulatory strategies. Furthermore, these checklists facilitate global market access, activate R&D, enhance clinical implementation, and improve licensing practices.
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.