Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)879-885
Number of pages7
JournalNuclear Medicine and Biology
Volume34
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Molecular Imaging
Biochemical Phenomena
Therapeutics
Biomarkers
Validation Studies
Clinical Studies
Molecular Biology
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Biomarkers
  • Molecular biology
  • Multiple imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Molecular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Krohn, K., O'Sullivan, F., Crowley, J., Eary, J. F., Linden, H. M., Link, J., ... Swanson, K. R. (2007). Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes. Nuclear Medicine and Biology, 34(7), 879-885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014

Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes. / Krohn, Kenneth; O'Sullivan, Finbarr; Crowley, John; Eary, Janet F.; Linden, Hannah M.; Link, Jeanne; Mankoff, David A.; Muzi, Mark; Rajendran, Joseph G.; Spence, Alexander M.; Swanson, Kristin R.

In: Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Vol. 34, No. 7, 10.2007, p. 879-885.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krohn, K, O'Sullivan, F, Crowley, J, Eary, JF, Linden, HM, Link, J, Mankoff, DA, Muzi, M, Rajendran, JG, Spence, AM & Swanson, KR 2007, 'Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes', Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 879-885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014
Krohn, Kenneth ; O'Sullivan, Finbarr ; Crowley, John ; Eary, Janet F. ; Linden, Hannah M. ; Link, Jeanne ; Mankoff, David A. ; Muzi, Mark ; Rajendran, Joseph G. ; Spence, Alexander M. ; Swanson, Kristin R. / Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes. In: Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 2007 ; Vol. 34, No. 7. pp. 879-885.
@article{3cdc5cf62ea548e3862bb62827633662,
title = "Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes",
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.",
keywords = "Biomarkers, Molecular biology, Multiple imaging",
author = "Kenneth Krohn and Finbarr O'Sullivan and John Crowley and Eary, {Janet F.} and Linden, {Hannah M.} and Jeanne Link and Mankoff, {David A.} and Mark Muzi and Rajendran, {Joseph G.} and Spence, {Alexander M.} and Swanson, {Kristin R.}",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "879--885",
journal = "International journal of radiation applications and instrumentation. Part B, Nuclear medicine and biology",
issn = "0969-8051",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenges in clinical studies with multiple imaging probes

AU - Krohn, Kenneth

AU - O'Sullivan, Finbarr

AU - Crowley, John

AU - Eary, Janet F.

AU - Linden, Hannah M.

AU - Link, Jeanne

AU - Mankoff, David A.

AU - Muzi, Mark

AU - Rajendran, Joseph G.

AU - Spence, Alexander M.

AU - Swanson, Kristin R.

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Biomarkers

KW - Molecular biology

KW - Multiple imaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34848858002&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34848858002&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014

DO - 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.014

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 879

EP - 885

JO - International journal of radiation applications and instrumentation. Part B, Nuclear medicine and biology

JF - International journal of radiation applications and instrumentation. Part B, Nuclear medicine and biology

SN - 0969-8051

IS - 7

ER -