Literature DB >> 21325035

Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

Andrew J Buckler1, Linda Bresolin, N Reed Dunnick, Daniel C Sullivan, Hugo J W L Aerts, Bernard Bendriem, Claus Bendtsen, Ronald Boellaard, John M Boone, Patricia E Cole, James J Conklin, Gary S Dorfman, Pamela S Douglas, Willy Eidsaunet, Cathy Elsinger, Richard A Frank, Constantine Gatsonis, Maryellen L Giger, Sandeep N Gupta, David Gustafson, Otto S Hoekstra, Edward F Jackson, Lisa Karam, Gary J Kelloff, Paul E Kinahan, Geoffrey McLennan, Colin G Miller, P David Mozley, Keith E Muller, Rick Patt, David Raunig, Mark Rosen, Haren Rupani, Lawrence H Schwartz, Barry A Siegel, A Gregory Sorensen, Richard L Wahl, John C Waterton, Walter Wolf, Gudrun Zahlmann, Brian Zimmerman.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Quantitative imaging biomarkers could speed the development of new treatments for unmet medical needs and improve routine clinical care. However, it is not clear how the various regulatory and nonregulatory (eg, reimbursement) processes (often referred to as pathways) relate, nor is it clear which data need to be collected to support these different pathways most efficiently, given the time- and cost-intensive nature of doing so. The purpose of this article is to describe current thinking regarding these pathways emerging from diverse stakeholders interested and active in the definition, validation, and qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers and to propose processes to facilitate the development and use of quantitative imaging biomarkers. A flexible framework is described that may be adapted for each imaging application, providing mechanisms that can be used to develop, assess, and evaluate relevant biomarkers. From this framework, processes can be mapped that would be applicable to both imaging product development and to quantitative imaging biomarker development aimed at increasing the effectiveness and availability of quantitative imaging. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100800/-/DC1. RSNA, 2011

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21325035      PMCID: PMC5410955          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100800

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  16 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 2.  Process map proposal for the validation of genomic biomarkers.

Authors:  Federico Goodsaid; Felix Frueh
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 3.  The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development.

Authors:  Janet Woodcock; Raymond Woosley
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 13.739

4.  The Innovative Medicines Initiative: a pre-competitive initiative to enhance the biomedical science base of Europe to expedite the development of new medicines for patients.

Authors:  A Jackie Hunter
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 7.851

5.  Registries for robust evidence.

Authors:  Nancy A Dreyer; Sarah Garner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Working together to enhance the efficiency of medical product development.

Authors:  Wendy R Sanhai
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Questions and answers about the Pilot Process for Biomarker Qualification at the FDA.

Authors:  Federico M Goodsaid; Felix W Frueh
Journal:  Drug Discov Today Technol       Date:  2007

9.  Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points.

Authors:  D J Sargent; L Rubinstein; L Schwartz; J E Dancey; C Gatsonis; L E Dodd; L K Shankar
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  The Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for image-based assessment modalities.

Authors:  Gary S Dorfman; Daniel C Sullivan; Mitchell D Schnall; Lynn M Matrisian
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  46 in total

Review 1.  Applications of imaging technology in radiation research.

Authors:  MingDe Lin; Edward F Jackson
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Informatics methods to enable sharing of quantitative imaging research data.

Authors:  Mia A Levy; John B Freymann; Justin S Kirby; Andriy Fedorov; Fiona M Fennessy; Steven A Eschrich; Anders E Berglund; David A Fenstermacher; Yongqiang Tan; Xiaotao Guo; Thomas L Casavant; Bartley J Brown; Terry A Braun; Andre Dekker; Erik Roelofs; James M Mountz; Fernando Boada; Charles Laymon; Matt Oborski; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.546

3.  Special Section Guest Editorial:Radiomics and Imaging Genomics: Quantitative Imaging for Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Sandy Napel; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-12-11

4.  Consistency of breast density measured from the same women in four different MR scanners.

Authors:  Jeon-Hor Chen; Siwa Chan; Yi-Jui Liu; Dah-Cherng Yeh; Chih-Kai Chang; Li-Kuang Chen; Wei-Fan Pan; Chih-Chen Kuo; Muqing Lin; Daniel H E Chang; Peter T Fwu; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Challenges and opportunities for imaging journals: emerging from the shadows.

Authors:  Herbert Y Kressel
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Scattering by single physically large and weak scatterers in the beam of a single-element transducer.

Authors:  Jeremy P Kemmerer; Michael L Oelze; Miklós Gyöngy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability.

Authors:  Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Chintan Parmar; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; André L A J Dekker; Robert J Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.089

Review 8.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 9.  Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications.

Authors:  Virginia B Planz; Meghan G Lubner; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Choline-to-N-acetyl aspartate and lipids-lactate-to-creatine ratios together with age assemble a significant Cox's proportional-hazards regression model for prediction of survival in high-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Ernesto Roldan-Valadez; Camilo Rios; Daniel Motola-Kuba; Juan Matus-Santos; Antonio R Villa; Sergio Moreno-Jimenez
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.