• Biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development.

      Cummings, Jeffrey; Ward, Timothy H; Greystoke, Alastair; Ranson, Malcolm R; Dive, Caroline; Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. jcummings@picr.man.ac.uk (2008-02)
      Over recent years the role of biomarkers in anticancer drug development has expanded across a spectrum of applications ranging from research tool during early discovery to surrogate endpoint in the clinic. However, in Europe when biomarker measurements are performed on samples collected from subjects entered into clinical trials of new investigational agents, laboratories conducting these analyses become subject to the Clinical Trials Regulations. While these regulations are not specific in their requirements of research laboratories, quality assurance and in particular assay validation are essential. This review, therefore, focuses on a discussion of current thinking in biomarker assay validation. Five categories define the majority of biomarker assays from 'absolute quantitation' to 'categorical'. Validation must therefore take account of both the position of the biomarker in the spectrum towards clinical end point and the level of quantitation inherent in the methodology. Biomarker assay validation should be performed ideally in stages on 'a fit for purpose' basis avoiding unnecessarily dogmatic adherence to rigid guidelines but with careful monitoring of progress at the end of each stage. These principles are illustrated with two specific examples: (a) absolute quantitation of protein biomarkers by mass spectrometry and (b) the M30 and M65 ELISA assays as surrogate end points of cell death.
    • Is serum or plasma more appropriate for intersubject comparisons in metabolomic studies? An assessment in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

      Wedge, D C; Allwood, J W; Dunn, W; Vaughan, A A; Simpson, Kathryn L; Brown, M; Priest, Lynsey; Blackhall, Fiona H; Whetton, Anthony D; Dive, Caroline; et al. (2011-09-01)
      In clinical analyses, the most appropriate biofluid should be analyzed for optimal assay performance. For biological fluids, the most readily accessible is blood, and metabolomic analyses can be performed either on plasma or serum. To determine the optimal agent for analysis, metabolic profiles of matched human serum and plasma were assessed by gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry and ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (in positive and negative electrospray ionization modes). Comparison of the two metabolomes, in terms of reproducibility, discriminative ability and coverage, indicated that they offered similar analytical opportunities. An analysis of the variation between 29 small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients revealed that the differences between individuals are markedly similar for the two biofluids. However, significant differences between the levels of some specific metabolites were identified, as were differences in the intersubject variability of some metabolite levels. Glycerophosphocholines, erythritol, creatinine, hexadecanoic acid, and glutamine in plasma, but not in serum, were shown to correlate with life expectancy for SCLC patients, indicating the utility of metabolomic analyses in clinical prognosis and the particular utility of plasma in relation to the clinical management of SCLC.