Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. Cancer Centers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 195, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 101-106

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

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer centers; CT; Evidence based imaging; Oncologic imaging; PET CT; Radiology practice patterns; RECIST

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; ARTICLE; CANCER CENTER; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE ACTIVITY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RADIOLOGY; TUMOR VOLUME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954725519     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2850     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
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. www.nipte.org/docs/Critical-Path.pdf. Published March 2004; accessed October 18, 2009
6. Sullivan DC. Imaging as a quantitative science. Radiology 2008; 248:328-332
7. Boone JM. Radiological interpretation 2020: toward quantitative image assessment. Med Phys 2007; 34:4173-4179
8. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205-216
9. 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
10. Sunshine JH, Cypel YS. Types of procedures performed by diagnostic radiology practices: past patterns and future directions. AJR 2004; 183: 1193-1201
11. O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Asselin MC, Buckley DL, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9:766-776
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. Guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05d-0112-gdl001.pdf. Published May 2007. Accessed October 18, 2009
13. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? (commentary) Br J Radiol 2000; 73:1031-1033
14. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42:1031-1039
15. Tuma RS. Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1272-1274
16. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, et al.; International Cancer Imaging Society. Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours: a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:2256-2260
17. Choi H. Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model. Curr Oncol Rep 2005; 7:307-311
18. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1760-1764
19. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3245-3251
20. Jaffe TA, Nelson RC, Delong DM, Paulson EK. Practice patterns in percutaneous image-guided intraabdominal abscess drainage: survey of academic and private practice centers. Radiology 2004; 233:750-756
21. Silverman SG, Coughlin BF, Seltzer SE, Swensson RG, Mueller PR. Current use of screening laboratory tests before abdominal interventions: a survey of 603 radiologists. Radiology 1991; 181:669-673
22. Mueller PR, Wittenberg KH, Kaufman JA, Lee MJ. Patterns of anesthesia and nursing care for interventional radiology procedures: a national survey of physician practices and preferences. Radiology 1997; 202:339-343
23. Wong TZ, Paulson EK, Nelson RC, Patz EF Jr, Coleman RE. Practical approach to diagnostic CT combined with PET. AJR 2007; 188:622-629
24. 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45[suppl 1]:56S-65S
25. 18F-FDG PET/CT: 1-stop-shop imaging for assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1408-1413
26. 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:885-895
27. Coleman RE, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ, et al.; American College of Radiology; Society of Nuclear Medicine; Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:1225-1239
28. 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
29. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gonen M. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:300-310