Skip to main content

Abstract

Molecular biomarker assays are the key to unlocking the promise of personalized medicine. Molecular assays need to be developed on clinically relevant samples and be rigorously validated. First and foremost, we need to establish the assay’s clinical relevance using appropriate patient populations, in order to answer the fundamental question “why this molecular assay is useful and what unmet medical need does it fill?” Once the medical utility of the assay has been demonstrated, we need to ensure the assay can be accurately measured. One major branch of molecular assays is genomic alterations, including DNA point mutations, fusions, copy number alterations, loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and translocations. Efficient measurements on these DNA alterations across the genome become increasingly feasible with advancements in sequencing technology. However, reliable detection and accurate quantification of these important genomic-based assays may not be as straightforward as we think. While clinical validation on an independent test set against a reference standard is critical and necessary, it is only the first step. The final performance observed in the test set must be maintained in real-life settings amidst commonly encountered interfering substances and across different reagent lots, sequencing machines, and human operators. Adding to the complexity, when the genomic alteration is rare, it poses additional challenges on cost effectiveness. Innovation on methodology becomes key in keeping the highest scientific rigor while conducting the evaluation in the most efficient manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. (2001). Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 69: 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knezevic D, Goddard AD, Natraj N, Cherbavaz DB, Clark-Langone KM, Snable J, Watson D, FAlzarano SM, Magi-Galluzzi C, Klein EA, Quale C. (2013). Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay—a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genomics, 14:690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diggans J, Kim SY, Hu Z, Pankratz D, Wong M, Reynolds J, Tom E, Pagan M, Monroe R, Rosai J, Livolsi VA, Lanman RB, Kloos RT, Walsh PS, Kennedy GC. (2015). Machine learning from concept to clinic: reliable detection of BRAF V600E DNA mutations in thyroid nodules using high-dimensional RNA expression data. Pac Symp Biocomputing, 371–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA. Statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests. 2007. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071148.htm.

  • Kloos RT, Reynolds JD, Walsh PS, Wilde JI, Tom EY, Pagan M, Barbacioru C, Chudova DI, Wong M, Friedman L, LiVolsi VA, Rosai J, Lanman RB, Kennedy GC. (2013). Does addition of BRAF V600E mutation testing modify sensitivity or specificity of the Afirma Gene Expression Classifier in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules? J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 98:E761–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun G, Flickinger M, Hetrick KN, Romm JM, Doheny KF, Abecasis GR et al. (2012). Detecting and estimating contamination of human DNA samples in sequencing and array -based genotype data. American Journal of Human Genetics, 91, 839–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cibulskis K, McKenna A, Fennell T, Banks E, DePristo M, Getz G. (2012). ContEst: estimating cross-contamination of human samples in next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 27(18):2601–2602. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Chen J, Lathrop M and Liang L. (2013). A tool for RNA sequencing sample identity check. Bioinformatics, 29, 1463–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pengelly RJ, Gibson J, Andreoletti G, Collins A, Mattocks CJ, Ennis S (2013). A SNP profiling panel for sample tracking in whole-exome sequencing studies. Genome Medicine, 5, 89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi Y, Babiarz J, Tom E, Kennedy GC, Huang J (2017a). Repurpo12sing kinship coefficients as a sample integrity method for next generation sequencing data in a clinical setting. Model Assisted Statistics and Applications 12:265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buness A, Huber W, Steiner K et al (2005). arrayMagic: two-colour cDNA microarray quality control and preprocessing. Bioinformatics 21: 554–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen Freue GV, Hollander Z, Shen E, Zamar RH, Balshaw R, Scherer A, McManus B, Keown P, McMaster WR, Ng RT (2007), MDQC: a new quality assessment method for microarrays based on quality control reports. Bioinformatics 23: 3162–3169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffmann A, Huber W (2010). Microarray data quality control improves the detection of differentially expressed genes. Genomics 95: 138–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh PS, Wilde JI, Tom EY, Reynolds JD, Chen DC, Chudova DI, Pagan M, Pankratz DG, Wong M, Veitch J, Friedman L, Monroe R, Steward DL, Lupo MA, Lanman RB, Kennedy GC (2012). Analytical performance verification of a molecular diagnostic for cytology-indeterminate thyroid nodules. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(12): E2297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Z, Whitney D, Anderson JR, Cao M, Ho C, Choi Y, Huang J, Frink R, Smith KP, Monroe R, Kennedy GC, Walsh PS (2016) Analytical performance of a bronchial genomic classifier. BMC Cancer 16:161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi Y, Lu J, Hu Z, Pankratz DG, Jiang H, Cao M, Marchisano C, Huiras J, Fedorowicz G, Wong MG, Anderson JR, Tom EY, Babiarz J, Imtiaz U, Barth NM, Walsh PS, Kennedy GC, Huang J (2017b). Analytical performance of Envisia: a genomic classifier for Usual Interstitial Pneumonia. BMC Pulmonary Medicine BMC Pulm Med. 17:141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnet, K., Boyd, J. C. (2012) Selection and and analytical evaluation of methods—with statistical techniques. In Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics 5. ed. (Chapter 2, pp. 7–48). St Louis: Elsevier Sci. Intl. Congress Series 1100.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teutsch S, Bradley L, Palomaki G, Haddow J, Piper M, Calonge N, et al. (2009). The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (egapp) initiative: methods of the egapp working group. Genetics in Medicine. 11(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun F, Bruening W, Uhl S, Ballard R, Tipton K, Scoelles K (2010). Quality, Regulation and Clinical Utility of Laboratory-Developed Molecular Tests. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Technology Assessment Program. Available online: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/downloads/id72TA.pdf, accessed on 2017.

  • Saah AJ, Hoover DR. (1997). Sensitivity and specificity reconsidered: the meaning of these terms in analytical and diagnostic settings. Ann Intern Med. 126(1):91–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudova D, Wilde JI, Wang ET, Wang H, Rabbee N, Egidio CM, Reynolds J, Tom E, Pagan M, Rigl CT, Friedman L, Wang CC, Lanman RB, Zeiger M, Kebebew E, Rosai J, Fellegara G, LiVolsi VA, Kennedy GC (2010). Molecular Classification of Thyroid Nodules Using High-Dimensionality Genomic Data, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 95(12):5296–5304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson WE, Rabinovic A, and Li C (2007). Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using Empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8(1):118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leek JT and Storey JD. (2007). Capturing heterogeneity in gene expression studies by ‘surrogate variable analysis’. PLoS Genetics 3:e161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon-Bartsch JA, Speed TP. (2012). Using control genes to correct for unwanted variation in microarray data. Biostatistics, 13(3):539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob L, Gagnon-Bartsch JA, Speed TP. (2016). Correcting gene expression data when neither the unwanted variation nor the factor of interest are observed. Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 17(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxv026

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leek JT (2014) svaseq: removing batch effects and other unwanted noise from sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research, Vol 42, No. 21 e161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risso D, Ngai J, Speed TP, Dudoit S. (2014) Normalization of RNA-seq data using factor analysis of control genes or samples. Nature biotechnology, 32: 896–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, Juan T, Sikorski R, Suggs S, Radinsky R, Patterson SD, Chang DD. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1626–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-Barclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics. 2003;4(2):249–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitney DH, Elashoff MR, Porta-Smith K, Gower AC, Vachani A, Ferguson JS, et al. (2015) Derivation of a bronchial genomic classifier for lung cancer in a prospective study of patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy. BMC Med Genomics, 8:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri GA, Vachani A, Whitney DH, Elashoff MR, Porta-Smith K, Ferguson JS, et al. (2015) A Bronchial Genomic Classifier for the diagnostic evaluation of lung cancer. N Engl J Med 373(3):243–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Giulia C. Kennedy, Marla Johnson, and Andrea Danforth for carefully reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Choi, Y., Huang, J. (2019). Validation of Genomic-Based Assay. In: Fang, L., Su, C. (eds) Statistical Methods in Biomarker and Early Clinical Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31503-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics