Beyond biomarker validation: defining when serum neurofilament light chain should influence management in multiple sclerosis
- 1Department of Neurology, Complejo Asistencial de Ávila
Abstract
Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) is a well-established biomarker of neuroaxonal injury in multiple sclerosis (MS), associated with inflammatory disease activity, treatment response, and future clinical outcomes. As a downstream marker of tissue injury rather than a direct readout of a specific immune pathway, its increasing availability raises a more demanding question: when does sNfL provide enough additional information to improve management of an individual patient? This review examines sNfL from the perspective of clinical actionability and personalized decision support rather than biomarker validity alone. Reliable patient-level use requires analytical comparability, consideration of biological and clinical confounders, individualized normalization, temporal context, and longitudinal interpretation. Even when these conditions are met, clinical value depends on whether sNfL adds meaningful information beyond established clinical and magnetic resonance imaging monitoring. Current evidence best supports its role as a decision-support biomarker: unexpected or persistent abnormalities may justify verification, closer surveillance, or targeted reassessment, whereas normal values cannot reliably exclude clinically relevant MS biology, including relapse-independent disability accumulation. This asymmetry, together with the limited disease specificity of sNfL, argues against universal treatment thresholds and supports complementary biomarker and multimodal approaches. Evidence that sNfL predicts outcomes or influences intended management does not establish that acting on this information improves patient outcomes. Prospective studies are beginning to address this translational gap by evaluating sNfL-informed management strategies. The key remaining step is to demonstrate that acting on sNfL information—not merely measuring or interpreting it—improves clinically meaningful outcomes. Until then, sNfL is best positioned for biomarker-informed personalized monitoring rather than fully biomarker-guided care.
Related
- Pain management in cancer patients: Could opioids or NSAIDs influence outcomes?
- Beyond Algorithmic Accuracy: Field Readiness, Ecological Intelligence and Real-World Validation of Artificial Intelligence for Insect Pest Management.
- Evidence boundaries and integrated disease management of microbial disease risks in protected Cymbidium faberi production: a translational framework and validation agenda
- Pathophysiology and imaging of early memory impairment in multiple sclerosis
- Neuroinflammatory Imaging Biomarkers: Relevance to Multiple Sclerosis and its Therapy
BibTeX
@article{caminero2026beyond,
title = {{Beyond biomarker validation: defining when serum neurofilament light chain should influence management in multiple sclerosis}},
author = {Ana Belén Caminero},
journal = {Frontiers in Immunology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fimmu.2026.1979820},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1979820/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Beyond biomarker validation: defining when serum neurofilament light chain should influence management in multiple sclerosis
AU - Ana Belén Caminero
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Frontiers in Immunology
DO - 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1979820
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1979820/full
AB - Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) is a well-established biomarker of neuroaxonal injury in multiple sclerosis (MS), associated with inflammatory disease activity, treatment response, and future clinical outcomes. As a downstream marker of tissue injury rather than a direct readout of a specific immune pathway, its increasing availability raises a more demanding question: when does sNfL provide enough additional information to improve management of an individual patient? This review examines sNfL from the perspective of clinical actionability and personalized decision support rather than biomarker validity alone. Reliable patient-level use requires analytical comparability, consideration of biological and clinical confounders, individualized normalization, temporal context, and longitudinal interpretation. Even when these conditions are met, clinical value depends on whether sNfL adds meaningful information beyond established clinical and magnetic resonance imaging monitoring. Current evidence best supports its role as a decision-support biomarker: unexpected or persistent abnormalities may justify verification, closer surveillance, or targeted reassessment, whereas normal values cannot reliably exclude clinically relevant MS biology, including relapse-independent disability accumulation. This asymmetry, together with the limited disease specificity of sNfL, argues against universal treatment thresholds and supports complementary biomarker and multimodal approaches. Evidence that sNfL predicts outcomes or influences intended management does not establish that acting on this information improves patient outcomes. Prospective studies are beginning to address this translational gap by evaluating sNfL-informed management strategies. The key remaining step is to demonstrate that acting on sNfL information—not merely measuring or interpreting it—improves clinically meaningful outcomes. Until then, sNfL is best positioned for biomarker-informed personalized monitoring rather than fully biomarker-guided care.
SN - 1664-3224
ER -