Open Journal Systems

What makes a good biomarker?

Robert L Holland

Article ID: 7
Vol 1, Issue 1, 2016, Article identifier:66-77

VIEWS - 1843 (Abstract) 3213 (PDF)


The last decade has seen an extraordinary amount of effort devoted in biomedical research to the field of biomarkers. There have been some notable successes with novel markers being adopted into clinical practice bringing clear clinical benefit to some patients — particularly with the increasing numbers of medicines being approved with companion diagnostics. However, it is fair to say that there has not yet been the numbers of clinically valuable biomarkers brought to medical practice that the research effort would seem to warrant. This paper evaluates examples of successful biomarkers, markers which might be considered partial successes and a few problematic examples and ar-gues that more effort spent in the validation phase of marker development, and less in the discovery phase might be a more efficient way to allocate research resources.


Biomedical; biomarkers; analytes; companion diagnostics; validation; utility

Full Text:


Included Database


U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d., List of cleared or approved companion diagnostic devices (In Vitro and imaging tools), accessed December 29, 2015,

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d., Table of pharmacogenomic biomarkers in drug labeling, ac-cessed December 29, 2015,

Salter H and Holland R, 2014, Biomarkers: refining diagnosis and expediting drug development — reality, aspiration and the role of open innovation. Journal of Internal Medicine, vol.276: 215–228.

Diamandis E, 2010, Cancer biomarkers: can we turn re-cent failures into success? Journal of the National Can-cer Institute, vol.102: 1462–1467.

Brooks J, 2012, Translational genomics: the challenges of developing cancer biomarkers. Genome Research, vol.22(2): 183–187.

Enewold L, Geiger A M, Zujewski J, et al. 2015, Oncotype Dx assay and breast cancer in the United States: usage and concordance with chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol.151(1): 149–156.

Drukker C A, Bueno de Mesquita J M, Retèl V P, et al. 2013, A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. International Journal of Cancer, vol.133: 929–936.

Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, et al. 2013, Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with Oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol.31(22): 2783–2790.

Cuzick J, Swanson G P, Fisher G, et al. 2011, Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. The Lancet Oncology, vol.12(3): 245–255.

Füzéry A K, Levin J, Chan M M, et al. 2013, Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer di-agnostics: issues and challenges. Clinical Proteomics, vol.10: 13–27.

Linnet K, Bossuyt P M M, Moons K G M, et al. 2012, Quantifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test or marker. Clinical Chemistry, vol.58(9): 1292–1301.

Pepe M, Feng Z, Janes H, et al. 2008, Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol.100: 1432–1438.

Bossuyt P M, Reitsma J B, Bruns D E, et al. 2003, To-wards complete and accurate reporting of studies of di-agnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clinical Chemistry vol.49(1); 1–6.

Ioannidis J P A and Khoury M J, 2011, Improving validation practices in ''omics'' research. Science, vol.334(6060): 1230–1232.

Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohisto-chemistry tests for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy deci-sions in early breast cancer management: MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, IHC4 and Mammostrat, 2013, NICE di-agnostics guidance

Following NICE's exclusive recommendation, NHS England agrees to access program for Oncotype DX® breast cancer test, PR Newswire,

Braunstein L and Taghian A, 2016, Molecular pheno-type, multigene assays, and the locoregional manage-ment of breast cancer. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, vol.26(1): 9–16.

Clough K B, Poulet B, Jamshidian F, et al. 2012, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), December 4–8, 2012: Risk classification of early stage breast cancer as assessed by MammaPrint and Oncotype DX genomic assays. San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Kelly C M, Bernard P S, Krishnamurthy S, et al. 2012, Agreement in risk prediction between the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX®) and the PAM50 breast cancer intrinsic classifier™ in early-stage estro-gen receptor–positive breast cancer. The Oncologist, vol.17(4): 492–498.

Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. 2004, A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen treated, node negative breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, vol.351: 2817–2826.

Parker J S, Mullins M, Cheang M C U, et al. 2009, Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol.27(8): 1160–1167.

Ioannidis J P A and Panagiotou O A, 2011, Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent me-ta-analyses. JAMA, vol.305(21): 2200–2210.

Schreiber D, Nix D A, Brown D F M, et al. 2012, Natriuretic peptides in congestive heart failure, accessed January 2, 2016,

Curtis J R, van der Helm-van Mil A H, Knevel R, et al. 2012, Validation of a novel multibiomarker test to assess rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Care and Research, vol.64(12): 1794–1803.

U.S. Drug and Administration, n.d., Biomarker qualification program, accessed January 2, 2016,

Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative, n.d., accessed January 2, 2016,

Sharing Alzheimer’s research data with the world, n.d., accessed January 3, 2016,

The Australia Imaging, Biomarkers & Lifestyle Flagship study of Ageing, n.d., accessed January 3, 2016,

Insel P S, Mattsson N, Mackin R S, et al. 2015, Bio-markers and cognitive endpoints to optimize trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, vol.2(5): 534–547.

Blennow K, Mattsson N, Scholl M, et al. 2015, Amyloid biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol.36(5): 297–309.

Blennow K, Dubois B, Fagan A M, et al. 2015, Clinical utility of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in the diagnosis of early Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement, vol.11(1): 58–69.

Dubois B, Feldman H H, Jacova C, et al. 2014, Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria. The Lancet Neurology, vol.13(6): 614–629.

Alzheimer’s Association, Major new research study to demonstrate value of pet scans in Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, n.d., accessed January 4, 2016,

Durham A L, Caramori G, Chung K F, et al. 2016, Targeted anti-inflammatory therapeutics in asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease. Translational Research, vol.167(1): 192–203.

Parulekar A D, Diamant Z and Hanania N A, 2016, Role of T2 inflammation biomarkers in severe asthma. Cur-rent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, 22(1): 59–68.

Fichtlscherer S, Zeiher A M and Dimmeler S, 2011, Circulating MicroRNAs biomarkers or mediators of cardiovascular diseases? Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol.31(11): 2383–2390.

Creemers E E, Tijsen A J and Pinto Y M, 2012, Circulating microRNAs novel biomarkers and extracellular communicators in cardiovascular disease? Circulation Research vol.110(3): 483–495.

Goren Y, Kushnir M, Zafrir B, et al. 2012, Serum levels of microRNAs in patients with heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure vol.14(2): 147–154.

(1843 Abstract Views, 3213 PDF Downloads)


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Robert L Holland

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Advances in Precision Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.