The national biomarker development alliance: confronting the poor productivity of biomarker research and development

Bibliography

• Harris TJ, McCormick F. The molecular pathways of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:251-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelloff GJ, Sigman CC. Cancer biomarkers selecting the right drug for the right patient. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11:201-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poste G. Biospecimens, biomarkers and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol Med 2012;18:717-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Roosbroeck K, Pollet J, Calin GA. miRNAs and long noncoding RNAs as biomarkers in human disease. Expert Rev Mol Diag 2013;13:183-204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Towards precision in medicine. Building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease. National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Kern SG. Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures. Cancer Res 2012;72:6097-101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drucker G, Krapfenbauer K. Pitfalls and limitations in translation from biomarker discovery to clinical utility in predictive personalised medicine. The EPMA Journal 2013;4:7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pavlou MD, Diamindis EP, Blaustig IM. The long journey of cancer biomarkers from bench to the clinic. Clin Chem 2012;159:147-57
   Google Scholar
• Ransohoff DF, Gourlay ML. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:698-704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes DF, Allen J, Compton C, et al. Breaking a vicious cycle. Science Trans Med 2013;5:196-203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poste G, Carbone DP, Parkinson DR, et al. Leveling the playing field: bringing development of biomarkers and molecular diagnostics up to the standards for drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1515-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindor RA, Alloco SJ, Cheatham L, et al. Regulatory and reimbursement regulation. Sci Trans Med 2013;5(176):p176cm3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poste G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature 2011;496:156-7
   Google Scholar
• NBDA. Available from: www.NBDAbiomarkers.com
   Google Scholar
• Compton C. Getting to personalized cancer medicine. Taking out the garbage. Cancer 2007;110:1641-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ransohoff DF. Lessons from controversy: ovarian cancer screening and serum proteomics. J. Nat. Cancer Inst 2005;97:315-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitt SM, Badre SS, Trude LD. Impact of preanalytic factors on the design and application of integral biomarkers from discovery therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1524-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore HM, Compton CC, Alper J, Vaught JB. International approaches to advancing biospecimen science. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:729-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullerton SM, Anderson NR, Guzauskas G, et al. Meeting the governance challenges of next generation biorepository research. Sci Trans Med 2010;2:1-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson M, Werner C. Wireless and mobile monitoring: bringing healthcare home. Medtech Insight 2011;13:33-42
   Google Scholar
• Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012;483:531-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Disc 2011;10:712-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, et al. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2014;111:5773-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veeraraghavalu K, Zhang C, Miller C, et al. Comment on Apo-E directed therapeutics rapidly clear β- amyloid and reverse deficits in AD mouse models. Science 2013;340:924-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevali A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:17028-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rifai N, Altman DG, Bossuyt PM. Reporting bias in diagnostic and prognostic studies. Time for action. Clin Chem 2008;54:1101-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andre F, McShane LM, Micheils S, et al. Biomarker studies: a call for comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2011;8:171-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sridharan L, Greenland P. Editorial policies and publication bias: the importance of negative studies. Arch Int Med 2009;169:1022-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reitsma JB, Moous KG, Bossuyt DM, et al. Systematic reviews of studies quantifying the accuracy of diagnostic tests and markers. Clin Chem 2012;58:1534-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 2005;292:1363-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korevaar DA, Ochodo EA, Bossuyt PMM, et al. Publication and reporting of test accuracy studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Clin Chem 2014;60:651-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Digital Infrastructure for the Learning Health System. National Academies Pres. Washington, DC; 2011
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Refining processes for the co-development of genome-based therapeutics and companion diagnostic tests: workshop summary. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2014
   Google Scholar
• Koboldt DC, Steinberg KM, Larson DE, et al. The next-generation sequencing revolution and its impact on genomics. Cell 2013;155:27-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg JS, Adams M, Nassar N, et al. An informatics approach to analyzing the Incidentalome. Genet Med 2013;15:36-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whirl-Carrillo M, McDonagh EM, Hebert JM, et al. Pharmacogenetics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:414-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam HY, Clark MJ Chen R, et al. Performance comparison of whole-genome sequencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol 2012;30:78-82
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey FG, Grove MG, Pan C, et al. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole genome sequencing. JAMA 2014;311:1035-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. Cyberinfrastructure for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21). Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12051.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joly Y, Dove Es, Knoppers BM, et al. Data sharing in the post-genome world: the experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) data access compliance office (DACO). PLOS Comp. Biol 2012;8:e1002549
   Google Scholar
• Stein DT, Terry SF. Reforming biobank consent policy: a necessary move away from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genet Tests Mol Biomarkers 2013;17:855-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgman CL. The conundrum of sharing research data. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2011;6:1059-78
   Google Scholar
• Kaye J, Hawkins N. Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability. Genome Med 2014;6:4-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar