- Published
- Updated
When companion-diagnostic evaluation accompanies a drug study, the result may affect eligibility or another participant decision. Gaps arise if the two sets of documents describe the same specimen and decision inconsistently.
Define the assessment
Define the assay role, version and timing of result delivery to authorised staff. Collection and analysis may occur in different locations and processes. Authorised teams should jointly assess applicable pathways, consent and data responsibilities; one shared heading does not automatically satisfy every requirement.
Worked example
For example, the drug protocol specifies selection using one assay version, while the laboratory plan names another. The team investigates more than the wording. It traces affected specimens, decision dates and result transmission, identifying which version informed each selection. Uncertain records are not retrospectively completed as though already authorised.
Practical checks
- Map the protocol decision rule to the assay plan and specimen pathway.
- Record blinding, access and use of results in participant decisions.
- Assess assay or protocol changes across both connected review pathways.
Decision and limitations
Acceptance requires consistent traceability of the same specimen and decision across documents. Technical assay operation alone does not establish suitability of the decision context. Escalate discrepancies to relevant sponsor, laboratory and regulatory owners; this map is neither individual treatment advice nor a universal submission route.
Frequently asked questions
- Does one shared protocol solve everything?
- A common document may help, but verify coverage of relevant assessments and responsibilities.
- Why link assay version to the decision record?
- It allows reconstruction of the method and evidence informing participant decisions.