In recent years, the field of companion diagnostic (CDx) testing has significantly evolved, becoming a crucial component in the landscape of precision medicine. The increasing reliance on these tests for informed medical decision-making, especially in haematology and oncology, underscores their critical role in patient care. However, this evolution has not come without challenges and the need for regulatory adaptations.
The Role and Importance of CDx Tests
CDx tests are designed to provide essential information about the safe and effective use of corresponding therapeutic products. These tests guide physicians in selecting the appropriate treatment based on a patient’s molecular profile, thereby enhancing the precision of medical interventions. By August 2023, over 60 drugs or drug combinations had an FDA-approved CDx test associated with them, illustrating the growing importance of these diagnostics .
However, the reliability of CDx tests is paramount. Incorrect test results can lead to severe consequences, such as unnecessary interventions or missed treatment opportunities, potentially resulting in life-threatening scenarios for patients. Therefore, ensuring the accuracy and precision of these tests through rigorous validation processes is essential.
Regulatory Landscape: US vs. EU
Historically, the regulation of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) has varied significantly between the US and the European Union (EU). In the US, the FDA regulates CDx tests manufactured by commercial companies, but laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) are governed by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), which focus on analytical validity but not clinical validity.
Conversely, in the EU, CDx tests were previously categorized as low-risk IVDs, requiring minimal regulatory oversight. However, the introduction of the new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) has reclassified these tests as moderate-to-high-risk, necessitating comprehensive review and approval processes. This shift aims to enhance the reliability and safety of CDx tests used in clinical settings.
The Quality Concerns of LDTs
One of the significant challenges in the realm of CDx testing is the variability in quality between FDA-approved tests and LDTs. Studies have shown that LDTs, particularly those based on immunohistochemistry (IHC), often exhibit higher error rates compared to their FDA-approved counterparts. Discrepancies in test results between local and central laboratories, false negatives, and false positives have highlighted the need for stricter regulations and oversight .
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays, another common platform for CDx tests, have also demonstrated substantial variability across different laboratories. This inconsistency can lead to incorrect treatment decisions, further emphasizing the importance of robust regulatory frameworks .
Balancing Innovation and Regulation
While the need for stringent regulations is clear, it is equally important to recognise the benefits of LDTs. These tests offer flexibility, rapid development, and cost-effectiveness, making them valuable in addressing specific patient needs and exploring new diagnostic methodologies. However, the quality and reliability of LDTs must not be compromised.
The regulatory changes proposed by the FDA and the implementation of the IVDR in the EU aim to strike a balance between ensuring test accuracy and fostering innovation. These measures are expected to enhance patient safety by reducing the occurrence of incorrect test results and improving the quality of care in precision medicine.
Conclusion
The evolving regulatory landscape for CDx tests reflects the growing recognition of their critical role in medical decision-making. As the field of precision medicine continues to advance, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic tests through robust validation and regulatory oversight will be essential. By embracing these changes, we can enhance patient safety and pave the way for more effective and personalised treatments.
For further insights and detailed information, refer to Jan Trøst Jørgensen’s expert review on molecular diagnostics, which delves deeper into the impact of companion diagnostic testing and the evolving regulatory frameworks in the US and EU.
References
1. Jørgensen JT. Twenty-five years with companion diagnostics. Chin Clin Oncol. 2023;12(6):65. doi:10.21037/cco-23-96.
2. FDA. In vitro companion diagnostic devices. Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. 2014 Aug. Available from: [FDA Guidance](https://www.fda.gov/media/81309/download).
3. FDA. Medical devices; laboratory developed tests. A proposed rule by the FDA on 10/03/2023. Available from: [Federal Register](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/03/2023-21662/medical-devices-laboratory-developed-tests).
4. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Official Journal of the European Union. 2017 Apr.
5. Bogen SA. A root cause analysis into the high error rate in clinical immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochemical Mol Morphol. 2019;27(5):329-338. doi:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000750.
6. Vyberg M, Nielsen S. Proficiency testing in immunohistochemistry—experiences from Nordic immunohistochemical quality control (NordiQC). Virchows Arch. 2016;468(1):19-29. doi:10.1007/s00428-015-1829-1.
7. Pfeifer JD, Loberg R, Lofton-Day C, et al. Reference samples to compare next-generation sequencing test performance for oncology therapeutics and diagnostics. Am J Clin Pathol. 2022;157(4):628-638. doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqab164.
8. Vega DM, Yee LM, McShane LM, et al. Aligning tumour mutational burden (TMB) quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase II of the friends of cancer research TMB harmonization project. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1626-1636. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.016.
9. Robinson SA, Carter AR, Brindley DA. The changing regulatory landscape for laboratory developed tests. The Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. Regulatory Focus, 2021 Aug. Available from: [RAPS](https://www.raps.org/News-and-Articles/News-Articles/2021/8/The-changing-regulatory-landscape-for-laboratory-d).
10. Fernandez AI, Liu M, Bellizzi A, et al. Examination of Low ERBB2 Protein Expression in breast cancer Tissue. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(4):1-4. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7239.
11. Modi S, Jacot W, Yamashita T, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2-low advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(1):9-20. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2203690.
12. FDA. The public health evidence for FDA oversight of laboratory developed tests: 20 case studies 2015 Nov 16. Available from: [FDA Case Studies](https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM472777.pdf).