AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Review Article
*Corresponding Author: Chen Yeh, OncoDxRx, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Citation: Chen Yeh, (2023), Advancing Biomarker Testing for Precision Cancer Care, Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Research. 6(2); DOI:10.31579/2768-0487/109
Copyright: © 2023, Chen Yeh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 07 July 2023 | Accepted: 01 August 2023 | Published: 17 August 2023
Keywords: targeted therapy; biomarker testing; precision cancer care
Currently, several steps are involved before a cancer patient can receive a precision targeted therapy. Many therapies require that a patient is first tested to identify and evaluate specific biomarkers to determine if they are eligible for therapy. However, barriers to patient access for biomarker testing can arise beginning at test development and can persist through the interpretation of test results in the clinic and can prevent cancer patients from receiving therapies that can improve survival and quality of life. We need to make sure biomarker testing based precision cancer care can be delivered as fast as possible and as early as possible.
Precision medicine uses information about a person’s own genes or proteins to prevent, diagnose, treat disease or monitor patient response [1]. Often synonymous with personalized or genomic medicine, precision medicine is most developed in the field of cancer. When used in the treatment of cancer, precision medicine incorporates specific information (e.g., genetic alterations, molecular signatures) about a person’s cancer to inform diagnosis, prognosis, therapy selection, and to monitor how well therapy is working. The ability to identify the specific genetic alteration or molecular signature of an individual’s cancer has led to the increasing sub-categorization of cancer types. While it has long been known that genetic alterations cause cancer, and that a variety of different alterations can lead to the same result – cancer – we have only recently realized that those different alterations can be treated differently.
The knowledge and practice of precision medicine in cancer have been progressing rapidly. Advances in precision medicine in cancer have led to targeted cancer therapies, which work by interfering with specific cellular processes involved in the growth, spread, and progression of cancer. Currently, targeted therapy is the exception rather than the rule and is more developed in some cancers than in others, but in cases where patients are able to be treated with targeted therapies, studies have shown improved patient outcomes across cancer types [2, 3].
Treatment with targeted cancer therapy often requires diagnostic testing to analyze biological samples (e.g., blood, tumor tissue) taken from patients to identify and evaluate specific biomarkers. Biomarkers, also called molecular markers, are biological molecules, found in blood, tissues, or other bodily fluids that provide insight into normal or abnormal physiological processes, medical conditions, or diseases [4]. Cancer biomarkers can include molecules like proteins or genetic alterations like mutations, rearrangements, or fusions.
Testing patients for specific biomarkers is integral to precision medicine in cancer care, but unfortunately many patients who should be tested are not.
Patient access to appropriate biomarker testing relies on a combination of factors. First, there must be reliable, valid, and relevant tests available. The close connection between the performance of a test and the clinical decisions made as a result of testing, such as the initiation of a targeted cancer therapy, underscores the need for tests available on the market to be appropriately validated. Second, as new and validated tests become available, insurer coverage is an important factor in provider uptake and patient access. Without coverage, patients will not have access. Third, testing relies on knowledgeable health care providers, aware of what tests to utilize and when, as well as how to utilize the results in caring for their patients. Clinical treatment guidelines play a critical role in driving practice, and therefore must be updated regularly as evidence establishes new linkages between biomarkers and targeted therapies. Finally, health care facilities need to be equipped with the appropriate testing infrastructure for the efficient and sufficient collection and handling of tissue for testing, and health information technology to manage testing results and assist health care providers in clinical decision making. Failure to achieve any one of these factors can create challenges that limit access to biomarker testing and prevent cancer patients from realizing the full potential of precision medicine.
This review explores the current landscape of cancer biomarker testing, sheds light on the nature of challenges limiting adoption of appropriate testing, and proposes recommendations to increase the uptake of testing and advance the use of precision medicine in cancer care.
Diagnostic biomarkers are used to confirm presence of a disease or condition of interest, or to identify individuals with a subtype of the disease [5]. This is one of the earliest uses of biomarker testing in cancer [6]. A diagnostic biomarker can allow for the early detection and treatment of a disease. A hallmark of a diagnostic biomarker is the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene (Philadelphia Chromosome) used to help diagnose leukemias [7].
Therapeutic selection biomarkers, also known as predictive biomarkers, are used to identify individuals who are more likely than similar individuals without the biomarker to experience a favorable or unfavorable effect from exposure to a medical product or an environmental agent [5]. Cancer cells are characterized by their uninhibited, rapid growth. Traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy generally works by inhibiting any rapidly growing and dividing cells in the body without discerning between cancer cells and some types of normal cells that also happen to grow quickly. This mechanism of action is responsible for many of the side effects frequently associated with chemotherapy including hair loss, nausea, and low blood counts. Some targeted therapies are developed in a way that specifically target a cancer’s unique genetic alteration, typically manifested through cellular proteins, that are responsible for cellular processes like growth, repair, and communication. These proteins are specifically altered only in cancerous cells. For example, some cancers like non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are associated with an overexpression of a biomarker called epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein, due to a mutation. The EGFR mutation causes a de-regulation of normal cellular processes and drives the growth of the cancerous cells. Today, multiple EGFR therapies are available that target this de-regulation in cancerous cells with EGFR mutations, disrupting their ability to divide. Since targeted therapies only work for a subset of cancers, many rely on therapeutic selection tests, also known as companion diagnostics, which identify the appropriate patients who will benefit from therapy. Companion diagnostics (CDx) are often reviewed by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) simultaneously with the drug they are paired with and provide essential information for the safe and effective use of a drug. For example, HercepTest is an FDA-approved CDx for Herceptin (trastuzumab), a drug used to treat HER2 receptor-positive breast, gastric, and gastroesophageal cancers [8].
Similar to CDx, complementary diagnostics support the decision making around the use of a particular drug. However, they are distinct in that they are not required for the safe and effective use of a drug but aid in the assessment of risks and benefits of a particular drug. For example, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx test is an FDA-approved complementary diagnostic for Opdivo (nivolumab), a drug used to treat PD-L1 positive NSCLC [8]. While Opdivo (nivolumab) works progressively better in patients with higher PD-L1 expression, those with lower PD-L1 expression may also benefit [9]. As a complementary diagnostic, the test is not required but may provide added information related to the use of the drug.
A prognostic biomarker is used to identify the likelihood of a clinical event, disease recurrence, or progression in patients who have a disease or medical condition of interest [5]. For instance, the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test [10] is a prognostic test that measures the expression of specific genes in a breast biopsy sample that can help determine the risk of recurrence of early-stage ER positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, and guide treatment decision making.
A susceptibility or risk biomarker is used to identify the potential for developing a disease or medical condition in an individual who does not currently have clinically apparent disease or the medical condition [5]. Certain biomarkers in a person’s normal DNA can be an indicator of elevated risk for developing a given cancer. For example, BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline genetic mutations are recognized for their link to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Individuals at higher risk can engage in preventive measures or enhanced surveillance. Germline genetic variants are inherited from parents and are present in every cell at birth. Genetic testing for germline mutations for inherited cancer risk is distinct from biomarker testing for somatic alterations, which occur in a specific cell after conception and is limited to only cells originating from that specific cell.
Monitoring biomarkers are used in assessing the status of a disease or medical condition or for evidence of exposure to or effect of a medical product or environmental agent [5]. A monitoring biomarker can be assessed serially over time such as, prior to the initiation of treatment, during treatment, and following treatment. Monitoring a biomarker over time can allow for comparisons to detect signs of disease worsening, concentration and toxicity of drugs, and to determine therapeutic response. As tumors rapidly grow and die, they release DNA fragments that circulate in the bloodstream. This DNA is identifiable as coming from tumor tissue, rather than healthy tissue, by the presence of specific mutations and is known as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Tumors have traditionally been imaged to monitor their size as an indication of treatment progress, but monitoring ctDNA in patients offers an additional approach that can potentially detect earlier indications that tumors are returning or to detect residual cancer not detected by imaging.
Traditionally, health care providers have treated cancer based on where it developed in the body. However, the approval of tissue-agnostic biomarkers characterizes a shift in how health care providers, payers, and patients will need to consider before cancer therapy. Tissue-agnostic targeted therapies are used to treat cancer types that have the same biomarker regardless of where it occurs in the body (e.g., breast, lung, melanoma). Since most somatic alterations in cancer can be found across cancer types [11], the development and use of tissue-agnostic targeted therapies will have considerable implications as to which patients should have tissue-agnostic biomarker testing (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Clinical utility of current cancer biomarkers. A wide array of potential cancer biomarkers is used to diagnose and track disease development and progression or response to therapy. Biomarkers ideally suited to this purpose should be specific for a particular type of cancer and not present in normal tissues or healthy individuals.
To effectively inform clinical decision-making, tests that accurately identify biomarkers relevant to a patient’s health must be readily available. Simple biomarker tests such as a basic metabolic panel are used in many health care settings and can identify a variety of common analytes found in individuals (e.g., calcium level, glucose level, etc.). However, tests for cancer biomarkers, often required for precision medicine, are more complex. Tests can take one of two regulatory pathways to market and are generally categorized as an FDA-cleared or -approved (FDA-authorized) diagnostic or Laboratory-Developed Test (LDT).
The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 gave FDA statutory authority to regulate diagnostic tests, including biomarker tests, as medical devices. Before market approval, FDA-authorized diagnostics undergo FDA premarket review in which the diagnostic is reviewed based on risk, with higher risk tests undergoing full review. FDA reviews biomarker tests for safety and effectiveness by assessing their analytical and clinical validity. Once authorized, the test can be used clinically. Many of these tests are shipped as “kits” that are run in clinical laboratories.
The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) gave the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) statutory authority over clinical laboratories. CLIA-certified laboratories can produce another category of diagnostic tests known as laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) [12]. In addition to creating LDTs, CLIA certification allows laboratories to perform and modify FDA-authorized tests [12]. LDTs do not undergo premarket review so they can be developed and offered commercially in a short time frame. While not reviewed prior to marketing, CLIA labs are inspected by CMS laboratory surveyors biennially to review analytical validity of LDTs. Historically, LDTs represented simple tests conducted by laboratories within the same health care institution for unique circumstances and were generally not commercially available outside of that institution. Increasingly, laboratories are developing more complex LDTs, including nearly identical versions of FDA-authorized CDx, without having to seek FDA approval [12]. With the simpler path to market of LDTs, there are potentially thousands of tests available, sometimes with very subtle differences even though they assess the same analytes. Without formal premarket FDA review, LDTs also often lack the same volume of available evidence, compared to FDA-authorized CDx, which payers review when making coverage determinations. Finally, FDA-authorized CDx are not afforded market exclusivity. The creation of LDT versions of CDx may have the effect of reducing the willingness of device manufacturers to invest the time and resources to develop tests through the FDA pathway.
Despite evidence pointing to the clinical benefits associated with biomarker testing, routine clinical use does not always follow. Testing rates lag behind guideline recommendations and are, in part, influenced by care setting. While additional research is needed to fully understand incomplete clinician uptake of guideline-recommended biomarker testing, several challenges to uptake have been identified. First, the field of precision medicine continues to quickly evolve, creating a challenge for health care providers to stay up-to-date with the latest clinical developments in biomarker testing and precision treatment. Health care providers must be aware of not only what tests are appropriate and when to test, but also knowledgeable in the interpretation of testing results. Evidence-based clinical treatment guidelines are one tool that aid in this process.
Second, diagnosing, staging, and testing of solid tumors requires tissue obtained from biopsies which involve the surgical removal of tissue from the body. Diagnosing and staging of tissue generally precedes biomarker testing and only a limited amount of tissue may be available for testing. Repeat biopsies may be required in order to obtain the necessary tissue for testing. Although the use of NGS panel tests is increasing and requires less tissue, single-gene tests are still widely used [13]. The evidence base demonstrating the utility of minimally invasive liquid biopsies, which involve analyzing bodily fluids for ctDNA, has been growing and could potentially address problems with tissue insufficiency [14]. However, they have yet to be widely adopted by clinical guidelines or payers [14, 15].
Finally, while there has been much effort over the last two decades to incentivize the adoption and use of electronic health records (EHR), most modern EHR systems and workflows were not designed with the sophistication required to efficiently process and interpret data associated with the delivery of precision medicine [16]. Some physicians may not be familiar with and lack confidence in interpreting biomarker test results [17-19]. Clinical decision support tools that are integrated into EHRs and are available at the point of care could promote testing of biomarkers and subsequent selection of targeted therapy. However, systems will need to be regularly updated to keep pace with scientific discoveries.
Research continues to show that cancer patients who receive biomarker testing and are eligible for and receive targeted cancer therapy have improved progression free survival and overall survival. For example, a 2017 study that compared outcomes of patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapies with patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy, found that patients who received targeted therapy lived on average 1.4 years longer [2]. Additional studies have reported similar findings when comparing diverse metastatic cancers. A 2015 study which compared the impact of targeted therapy in diverse metastatic cancers found that patients that received targeted therapy compared to non-targeted therapy had an over two-fold increase in median progression free survival and a one- and one-half fold increase in overall survival [3].
The rapid development of targeted cancer therapies across cancer types, has improved patient survival and quality of life. But many of these advances depend on access to biomarker testing. Barriers to biomarker testing can arise beginning at test development and persist through the interpretation of test results in the clinic. As precision medicine shifts the way health care providers and patients think about cancer treatments, it will be important to identify and address obstacles to appropriate biomarker testing. Addressing these barriers will require buy-in from diverse stakeholders across the health care system.
None.
None.
The author declared that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Conceptualization, writing and review: Chen Yeh
All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
