Literature DB >> 17921038

Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes.

Kenneth A Krohn1, Finbarr O'Sullivan, John Crowley, Janet F Eary, Hannah M Linden, Jeanne M Link, David A Mankoff, Mark Muzi, Joseph G Rajendran, Alexander M Spence, Kristin R Swanson.   

Abstract

This article addresses two related issues: (a) When a new imaging agent is proposed, how does the imager integrate it with other biomarkers, either sampled or imaged? (b) When we have multiple imaging agents, is the information additive or duplicative and how is this objectively determined? Molecular biology is leading to new treatment options with reduced normal tissue toxicity, and imaging should have a role in objectively evaluating new treatments. There are two roles for molecular characterization of disease. Molecular imaging measurements before therapy help predict the aggressiveness of disease and identify therapeutic targets and, therefore, help choose the optimal therapy for an individual. Measurements of specific biochemical processes made during or after therapy should be sensitive measures of tumor response. The rules of evidence are not fully developed for the prognostic role of imaging biomarkers, but the potential of molecular imaging provides compelling motivation to push forward with convincing validation studies. New imaging procedures need to be characterized for their effectiveness under realistic clinical conditions to improve the management of patients and achieve a better outcome. The purpose of this article is to promote a critical discussion within the molecular imaging community because our future value to the overall biomedical community will be in supporting better treatment outcomes rather than in detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17921038      PMCID: PMC2099630          DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Biol        ISSN: 0969-8051            Impact factor:   2.408


  25 in total

Review 1.  Sunitinib malate for the treatment of solid tumours: a review of current clinical data.

Authors:  Robert J Motzer; Sakina Hoosen; Carlo L Bello; James G Christensen
Journal:  Expert Opin Investig Drugs       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.206

Review 2.  Cancer biomarkers: a systems approach.

Authors:  Lee Hartwell; David Mankoff; Amanda Paulovich; Scott Ramsey; Elizabeth Swisher
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 3.  Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection.

Authors:  Joseph A Ludwig; John N Weinstein
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  The evolution of mathematical modeling of glioma proliferation and invasion.

Authors:  Hana L P Harpold; Ellsworth C Alvord; Kristin R Swanson
Journal:  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.685

5.  Real-time prognosis for metastatic thyroid carcinoma based on 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scanning.

Authors:  Richard J Robbins; Qiang Wan; Ravinder K Grewal; Roland Reibke; Mithat Gonen; H William Strauss; R Michael Tuttle; William Drucker; Steven M Larson
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 6.  The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; Kenneth A Krohn; Steven M Larson; Ralph Weissleder; David A Mankoff; John M Hoffman; Jeanne M Link; Kathryn Z Guyton; William C Eckelman; Howard I Scher; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Bruce D Cheson; Caroline C Sigman; James L Tatum; George Q Mills; Daniel C Sullivan; Janet Woodcock
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer.

Authors:  Hannah M Linden; Svetlana A Stekhova; Jeanne M Link; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Georgiana K Ellis; Philip H Petra; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-05-08       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Tumor hypoxia imaging with [F-18] fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Joseph G Rajendran; David L Schwartz; Janet O'Sullivan; Lanell M Peterson; Patrick Ng; Jeffrey Scharnhorst; John R Grierson; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 9.  RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment.

Authors:  P Therasse; E A Eisenhauer; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-04-17       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 10.  Recent advances of molecular targeted agents: opportunities for imaging.

Authors:  Janet E Dancey
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.742

View more
  4 in total

1.  VOXEL-LEVEL MAPPING OF TRACER KINETICS IN PET STUDIES: A STATISTICAL APPROACH EMPHASIZING TISSUE LIFE TABLES.

Authors:  Finbarr O'Sullivan; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Janet F Eary; Alexander M Spence; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Multiagent PET for risk characterization in sarcoma.

Authors:  Janet F Eary; Jeanne M Link; Mark Muzi; Ernest U Conrad; David A Mankoff; Jedediah K White; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  The contribution of physics to Nuclear Medicine: physicians' perspective on future directions.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Daniel A Pryma
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2014-05-01

4.  Quantitation of multiple injection dynamic PET scans: an investigation of the benefits of pooling data from separate scans when mapping kinetics.

Authors:  Fengyun Gu; Finbarr O'Sullivan; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.609

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.