Standardization of PET Imaging in Clinical Trials

PET Clinics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-4

  Shankar, Lalitha K ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Cancer management; ; FDG; PET; Prospective study; Response assessment; Standardization

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; PATIENT CARE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; STANDARDIZATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 64749093717     PISSN: 15568598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpet.2008.10.006     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69(3):89-95.
2. Lesko L.J., and Atkinson A.J. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 41 (2001) 347-366
3. Bhaktiar R. Biomarkers in drug discovery and development. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 57 (2008) 85-91
4. Shankar L., Menkens A., Sullivan D., et al. In: Kaufman H.L. (Ed). Molecular imaging in Oncology. Totowa, NJ (2008), Humana Press p. 675-93
5. Kelloff G.J., and Sigman C.C. New science-based endpoints to accelerate oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 41 (2005) 491-501
6. Hayes D., Bast R.C., Desch C.E., et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (1996) 1456-1466
7. Henry N.L., and Hayes D.F. Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 11 (2006) 541-552
8. McShane L., Altman D.G., Sauerbrei W., et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100 (2006) 229-235
9. Gambhir S.S., Johannes Czernin J., Judy Schwimmer J., et al. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 42 (2001) 1S-93S No.0050
10. Shankar L.K., Hoffman J.M., Bacharach S., et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med 47 (2006) 1059-1066
11. Minn H., Zasadny K.R., Quint L.E., et al. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology 196 (1995) 167-173
12. Weber W.A., Ziegler S.I., Thodtmann R., et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 40 (1999) 1771-1777
13. Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U., et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET study group. Eur J Cancer 35 (1999) 1773-1782