Molecular imaging and personalized medicine: An uncertain future

Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 722-739

  Nunn, Adrian D ^a  

^a Bracco Research USA   (United States)

Author keywords

Costs; Molecular imaging; Personalized medicine

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CETUXIMAB; IBRITUMOMAB TIUXETAN; IMATINIB; IODINE 123; IODINE 131; RITUXIMAB; TOSITUMOMAB I 131; TRASTUZUMAB;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; ISOTOPE LABELING; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DRUG APPROVAL; EUROPE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES; PHARMACOGENETICS; RADIOIMMUNOTHERAPY; RADIONUCLIDE IMAGING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 37549052857     PISSN: 10849785     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cbr.2007.0417     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. The Royal Society. Personalized Medicine: Hopes and Realities. September 2005. Online document at: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=15874 Accessed February 8, 2007.
2. AmpliChip CYP450. Background Information. Online document at: www.roche.com/med_backgr-ampli.htm Accessed February 8, 2007.
3. Zineh I, Gerhard T, Aquilante CL, et al. Availability of pharmacogenomics-based prescribing information in drug package inserts for currently approved drugs. Pharmacogen J 2004;4:354.
4. Genetech, Inc. Package Insert on Herceptin (trastuzumab). Online document at : www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2000/trasgen020900LB.htm#ind Accessed February 8, 2007.
5. Glinsky GV, Berezovska O, Glinskii AB. Microarray analysis identifies a death-from-cancer signature predicting therapy failure in patients with multiple types of cancer. J Clin Invest 2005;115:1503.
6. The Personalized Medicine Coalition. The Case for Personalized Medicine. November 2006. Online document www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/ communications/pmc_pub_11_06.php Accessed February 8, 2007.
7. Federal Drug Administration. Innovation and Stagnation. Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. March 2004. Online document www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ Accessed July 11, 2005.
8. FDA. Critical Path Opportunities Report. March 2006. Online document: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ Accessed April 3, 2006.
9. Federal Drug Administration. Critical Path Opportunities List. March 2006. Online dlocument at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ Accessed April 3, 2006.
10. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for "qualified biomarker": Functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006;47:901.
11. The Biomarkers Consortium. Public-private partnership forms The Biomarkers Consortium to advance the science of personalized medicine. October 2006. Online document at: www.fnih.org/Biomarkers%20Consortium/Biomarkers_home. shtml/ Accessed January 2, 2007.
12. National Cancer Institute. Oncology Biomarker Qualification Initiative. Online document at: www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/NCI_Cancer_Bulletin_022106/ page6 Accessed April 19, 2007.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Critical Path Opportunities List. 2006. www.fola.gov/oc/initiatives/critical path/reports/OPP_list.pdf Accessed on April 5, 2007.
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Developing Medical Imaging Drug and Biological Products. Part 2: Clinical Indications. 2004. www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/medimageind.htm Accessed on April 5, 2007.
15. van Den Abbeele A, Badawi RD. Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eur J Cancer 2002;38:S60.
16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry and Review Staff Target Product Profile - A Strategic Development Process Tool. March 2007. Online document at: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6910dft.pdf Accessed April 11, 2007.
17. Mills GQ. Biomarker Imaging in Drug Development & Licensed Products. Presentation from the FDA/DIA/BIO Meeting: Use of Medical Imaging as a Drug Development Tool, May 5-6, 2005, Bethesda, MD. Online document at: www.fda.gov/cder/regulatory/medimaging/ Accessed April 12, 2007.
18. Sorensen AG. Magnetic resonance as a cancer imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3274.
19. Nass SJ, Moses HL. The promises and challenges of improving detection and treatment. Committee on Developing Biomarker-Based Tools for Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment. In: Cancer Biomarkers. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.
20. Therasse P, Auck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumours. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205.
21. Sokol GH, Kane R. NCI Workshop Report on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology. November 30-December 2, 2006, Bethesda, MD. Online document at: http://www3.cancer.gov/rrp/workshop/2006Advanced RadiationTech/ presentations.html Accessed April 16, 2007.
22. U.S. Package Insert for Erbitux® August 2005. www.fda.gov/cder/foi/ label/2004/125084161.pdf Accessed April 7, 2007.
23. Shah, RB, Mehra R, Chinnaiyan AM, et al, Androgen-independent prostate cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases: Lessons from a rapid autopsy program. Cancer Res 2004;64:9209.
24. Torres L, Ribeiro FF, Pandis N, et al, Intratumor genomic heterogeneity in breast cancer with clonal divergence between primary carcinomas and lymph node metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;102:143.
25. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al. Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:913.
26. Israel O, Goldberg A, Nachtigal A, et al. FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:1280.
27. Nass SJ, Moses HL. The promises and challenges of improving detection and treatment. Committee on Developing Biomarker-Based Tools for Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment. In: Cancer Biomarkers. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007:12.
28. Nunn AD. The cost of developing imaging agents for routine clinical use. Invest Radiol 2006;41:206.
29. Dahlén P. Dako: A View of Pharmacodiagnostics. Online document at: https://www.hpcgg.org/PM/presentations/Tue_09_Dahlen_No7_Patrik_Boston2006.ppt. pdf Accessed April 20, 2007.
30. Perik PJ, Lub-De Hooge MN, Gietema JA, et al. Indium-111-labeled trastuzumab scintigraphy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2276.
31. Smith-Jones PM, Solit DB, Akhurst T, et al. Imaging the pharmacodynamics of HER2 degradation in response to Hsp90 inhibitors. Nat Biotech 2004;22:701.
32. 64Cu-labeled cetuximab, a chimeric anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:850.
33. VanBrocklin HF, Lim JK, Coffing SL, et al. Anilinodialkoxyquinazolines: Screening epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for potential tumor imaging probes. J Med Chem 2005;48:7445.
34. Nass SJ, Moses HL. The promises and challenges of improving detection and treatment. Committee on Developing Biomarker-Based Tools for Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment. In: Cancer Biomarkers. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007:59.
35. Oda K, Matsuoka Y, Funahashi A, et al. A comprehensive pathway map of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. Mol Syst Biol 2005;1:1
36. Adams PA, Brantner VV. Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really $802 million? Health Affairs 2006;25:420.
37. Adams PA, Brantner VV. The Real Cost of Drug Development. 2006. Online document at: www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/1842/Chris_Adams.pdf Accessed December 4, 2006.
38. Love J. Evidence Regarding Research and Development Investments in Innovative and Non-Innovative Medicines. Consumer Project on Technology. September 2003. Online document at: www.cptech.org/ip/health/rnd/ evidenceregardingrnd.pdf Accessed December 4, 2006.
39. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or Stagnation. Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. 2004. Online document at: www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html Accessed: September 23, 2006.
40. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom). Final Appraisal Determination - Cetuximab for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck. May 2007. Online document at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=429600 Accessed June 1, 2007.
41. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Reviewers. Exploratory IND Studies. April 2005. Online document at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6384dft.htm Accessed July 11, 2005.
42. European Medicines Agency. Position Paper on Non-Clinical Safety Studies to Support Clinical Trials with a Single Microdose. June 2004. Online document at: www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/swp/259902en.pdf Accessed July 11, 2005.
43. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151.
44. Parexel International. Parexel's Bio/Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2006/2007. Boston: Parexel International, 2006:120.
45. Frangione JV. Translating in vivo diagnostics into clinical reality. Nat Biotech 2006;24:909.
46. 99mTc) fanolesomab]. December 2005. Online document at: www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/technetium99/qa.htm Accessed April 26, 2007.
47. Pien HH, Fischman AJ, Thrall JH, et al. Using imaging biomarkers to accelerate drug development and clinical trials. Drug Discov Today 2005;10:259.
48. Nunn AD. Translating promising experimental approaches to clinical trials. In: Modo MMJJ Bulte JWM, eds. Molecular and Cellular MR Imaging. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007;395.
49. Dzik-Jurasz A. Are targeted contrast agents realistically going to reach the clinic? Recent regulatory experience with targeted MRI contrast agents. Br J Radiol 2006;79:870.
50. 2 Imaging Annual Report. FY 2005 Published June 2006. Online document at: http://planning.cancer.gov/planning/ I2%20Imaging%20Annual%20Report_general.pdf Accessed April 30, 2006.
51. National Cancer Institute. Interagency Council on Biomedical Imaging in Oncology. Online document at: www.cancer.gov/dctd/icbio Accessed April 3, 2006.
52. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Guidance for Industry. Special Protocol Assessment. May 2002. Online document at: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/ protocol.pdf Accessed April 30, 2007.
53. Vanchieri C. When will the U.S. flinch at cancer drug prices? J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:624.
54. Herrera S. Price controls: Preparing for the unthinkable. Nat Biotech 2006;24:257.
55. Poisal JA, Truffer T, Smith S, et al. National Health Expenditure Projections, 2006-2016. Online document at: www.cms.hhs.gov/ NationalHealthExpendData/03_NationalHealthAccountsProjected.asp#TopOfPage Accessed May 2, 2007.
56. [No authors]. When the price is right [editorial]. Nat Biotech 2006;24:473.
57. An Overview of the U.S. Health Care System. Chart Book. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. January 31, 2007. www.cms.hhs.gov/TheChart Series/downloads/chartbook_2007_pdf.pdf Accessed May 3, 2007.
58. [No authors]. Billion dollar pills. The Economist, January 2007, pp. 69-71. Online document at: www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/ displaystory.cfm?subjectid = 531766&story_id=E1_RVRVRJT Accessed April 11, 2007.
59. Neyt MJ, Albrecht JA, Clarysse B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Herceptin®: A standard cost model for breast-cancer treatment in a Belgian university hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:132.
60. Wood AJJ. A proposal for radical changes in the drugapproval process. N Engl J Med 2006;355:618.
61. Henderson JA, Alexander BC, Smith JJ. The Food and Drug Administration and molecular imaging agents: Potential challenges and opportunities. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:833.
62. List of orphan designations and approvals. Online document at: www.fda.gov/orphan/designat/list.htm Accessed June 7, 2007.
63. Clissold DB. Orphan Drug Market Dynamics and the Potential for Success. CBI's Rare Disease Leadership Summit. January 2007. Online document at: www.resource repository.org/gen_research/28/ Accessed June 7, 2007.
64. Angeles Villarreal M. Orphan Drug Act: Background and Proposed Legislation in the 107th Congress. RS20971 July 25, 2001. Online document at: www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RS20971.pdf Accessed June 7, 2007.
65. Krug B, Pirson AS, Crott R, et al. Is a methodology available that accurately measures the cost of an FDG-PET study? Eur J Nuc Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:625.