Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists' opinions and expectations at major U.S. cancer centers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 195, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Jaffe, Tracy A ^a   Wickersham, Nicholas W ^a   Sullivan, Daniel C ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Oncologist; RECIST; Tumor measurements

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CANCER CENTER; CANCER PATIENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DEMOGRAPHY; E-MAIL; GYNECOLOGY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; ONCOLOGIST; PHYSICIAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION; UNITED STATES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; NEOPLASM; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CANCER CARE FACILITIES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954712989     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3541     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71-72
2. Park JW, Kerbel RS, Kelloff GJ, et al. Rationale for biomarkers and surrogate end points in mechanism-driven oncology drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:3885-3896
3. Pien HH, Fischman AJ, Thrall JH, Sorensen AG. Using imaging biomarkers to accelerate drug development and clinical trials. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10:259-266 (Pubitemid 40222219)
4. Frank R, Hargreaves R. Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2:566-580 (Pubitemid 37361748)
5. Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Food and Drug Administration Website. www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/ CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262. htm. Published March 16, 2004. Updated August 12, 2009. Accessed August 21, 2009
6. Sullivan DC. Imaging as a quantitative science. Radiology 2008; 248:328-332
7. Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC. Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, Radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers. AJR 2010; 195:101-106
8. Sunshine JH, Cypel YS. Types of procedures performed by diagnostic radiology practices: past patterns and future directions. AJR 2004; 183:1193-1201
9. Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J. Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2009; 2:195-197
10. Deutskens E, De Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. Response rates and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Marketing Lett 2004; 15:21-36
11. Sheehan K. E-mail survey response rates: a review. JCMC, 2001:6. jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html. Accessed April 19, 2010
12. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2004; 68:94-101
13. Schuldt BA, Totten JW. Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research 1994; 6:36-39
14. Manning K, Tepfer B, Goldklang G, Loyd R, Garimella P, Halkar R. Clinical practice guidelines for the utilization of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in selected oncologic applications: suggestions from a provider group. Mol Imaging Biol 2007; 9:324-332; discussion, 323
15. Maldonado A, Gonzalez-Alenda FJ, Alonso M, Sierra JM. PET-CT in clinical oncology. Clin Transl Oncol 2007; 9:494-505
16. 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:480-508
17. Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced lowdose PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1643-1648
18. 18F-FDG PET/CT: is intravenous contrast administration really necessary? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36:1417-1424
19. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol 2007; 80:437-445
20. Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45[suppl 1]:82S-95S
21. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50[suppl 1]:1S-10S
22. Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Wanner-Roybal M, et al. PET/CT assessment of response to therapy: tumor change measurements, truth data, and error. Transl Oncol 2009; 2:223-230
23. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:228-247
24. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:248-260
25. Association of American Cancer Institutes. Imaging response assessment team: about us. The IRAT Network Website. www.iratnetwork.org/about.asp. Accessed November 19, 2009
26. Radiological Society of North America Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Radiological Society of North America Web site. www.rsna.org/Research/ qiba-intro.cfm. Accessed November 24, 2009.
27. Meyer CR, Armato SG 3rd, Fenimore CP, et al. Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources. Transl Oncol 2009; 2:198-210
28. Armato SG 3rd, Meyer CR, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of changeanalysis software. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84:448-456
29. McNitt-Gray MF, Bidaut LM, Armato SG 3rd, et al. Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error. Transl Oncol 2009; 2:216-222