
Feature|Articles|August 28, 2026
Navigating the Adoption of Biomarker-Informed Trial Enrollment Beyond Oncology
Author(s)Peter Schüler, MD, Jack L. Martin, MD, FACC
Biomarker-informed trial enrollment appears straightforward for identifying responders and optimizing efficiency, but failures to account for demographic variation in cut-off selection, causality versus correlation, and composite biomarker complexity risk excluding viable patients and exacerbating disparities.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Biomarker-informed trial enrollment can optimize trial efficiency and accuracy, but it can also exclude viable patient populations or jeopardize approval. Particularly for indications beyond oncology, there is limited explicit regulatory guidance for biomarker-informed trial enrollment.1 However, methodological insights have emerged from prior successes and failures.2
Related to this article

Patients don’t experience primary endpoints, so trials that stop at biomarkers and rigid rating scales risk declaring success while leaving daily burden untouched, and digital tools only deliver meaningful evidence when they are co-designed with patients and deployed with restraint.

Clinical trial endpoints define what success looks like, but patients and caregivers are rarely the ones setting that definition, and the gap between what trials measure and what patients actually value is showing up in post-approval evidence, regulatory submissions, and the design rooms where protocols are written.

In this Q&A, Saamir Pasha and Carole Berini, PhD, of Ontada discuss what it takes to harmonize fragmented oncology data into reliable real-world evidence, how lab markers can proxy for missing functional status data, and where the biggest remaining barriers to consistent RWE generation lie.

In this video interview, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, outlines why anti-kickback guidance and modern EHR-integrated trial matching technology must work in tandem to reach representative patient populations at the community level.

Medical writing capacity pressure is fundamentally a talent development problem, not a technology problem, since hybrid resourcing and AI cannot substitute for the experienced judgment needed to review AI output and mentor the next generation of writers.

In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.

Pacing obesity trial enrollment, anchoring eligibility to stable real-world therapies, and building site and physician relationships improve retention and data quality more than aggressive recruitment or restrictive exclusion criteria do.
Advertisement
Advertisement

