Feature|Articles|August 28, 2026

Navigating the Adoption of Biomarker-Informed Trial Enrollment Beyond Oncology

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.

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

© C Davids/peopleimages.com - © C Davids/peopleimages.com - stock.adobe.com
The clinical research industry talks about patient-centeredness constantly but embeds it too late, too narrowly, and without clear ownership, and the cost shows up in enrollment failures, protocol deviations, and outcomes that don't reflect what patients actually care about.
Why Seizure Counts Alone Can't Define Success in Epilepsy Trials
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, explains why the full burden of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies extends far beyond clinical symptoms—and why endpoints must reflect what families are actually hoping for.
© ABCDstock - © ABCDstock - stock.adobe.com
Patient-centricity remains largely consultative in most clinical research, yet rare disease communities demonstrate that genuine partnership from protocol inception improves feasibility, reduces unnecessary burden, and identifies outcomes that matter to patients themselves.