Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, James P B*
dc.contributor.authorAboagye, E*
dc.contributor.authorAdams, J*
dc.contributor.authorAerts, H*
dc.contributor.authorBarrington, S*
dc.contributor.authorBeer, A*
dc.contributor.authorBoellaard, R*
dc.contributor.authorBohndiek, S*
dc.contributor.authorBrady, M*
dc.contributor.authorBrown, G*
dc.contributor.authorBuckley, D*
dc.contributor.authorChenevert, T*
dc.contributor.authorClarke, L*
dc.contributor.authorCollette, S*
dc.contributor.authorCook, G*
dc.contributor.authordeSouza, N*
dc.contributor.authorDickson, J*
dc.contributor.authorDive, Caroline*
dc.contributor.authorEvelhoch, J*
dc.contributor.authorFaivre-Finn, Corinne*
dc.contributor.authorGallagher, F*
dc.contributor.authorGilbert, F*
dc.contributor.authorGillies, R*
dc.contributor.authorGoh, V*
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, J*
dc.contributor.authorGroves, A*
dc.contributor.authorHalligan, S*
dc.contributor.authorHarris, A*
dc.contributor.authorHawkes, D*
dc.contributor.authorHoekstra, O*
dc.contributor.authorHuang, E*
dc.contributor.authorHutton, B*
dc.contributor.authorJackson, E*
dc.contributor.authorJayson, Gordon C*
dc.contributor.authorJones, A*
dc.contributor.authorKoh, D*
dc.contributor.authorLacombe, D*
dc.contributor.authorLambin, P*
dc.contributor.authorLassau, N*
dc.contributor.authorLeach, M*
dc.contributor.authorLee, T*
dc.contributor.authorLeen, E*
dc.contributor.authorLewis, J*
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Y*
dc.contributor.authorLythgoe, M*
dc.contributor.authorManoharan, Prakash*
dc.contributor.authorMaxwell, R*
dc.contributor.authorMiles, K*
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, B*
dc.contributor.authorMorris, S*
dc.contributor.authorNg, T*
dc.contributor.authorPadhani, A*
dc.contributor.authorParker, Geoff J M*
dc.contributor.authorPartridge, M*
dc.contributor.authorPathak, A*
dc.contributor.authorPeet, A*
dc.contributor.authorPunwani, S*
dc.contributor.authorReynolds, A*
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, S*
dc.contributor.authorShankar, L*
dc.contributor.authorSharma, R*
dc.contributor.authorSoloviev, D*
dc.contributor.authorStroobants, S*
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, D*
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, St*
dc.contributor.authorTofts, P*
dc.contributor.authorTozer, G*
dc.contributor.authorvan Herk, Marcel*
dc.contributor.authorWalker-Samuel, S*
dc.contributor.authorWason, J*
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Kaye J*
dc.contributor.authorWorkman, P*
dc.contributor.authorYankeelov, T*
dc.contributor.authorBrindle, K*
dc.contributor.authorMcShane, L*
dc.contributor.authorJackson, Alan*
dc.contributor.authorWaterton, John C*
dc.date.accessioned2016-12-09T20:05:08Z
dc.date.available2016-12-09T20:05:08Z
dc.date.issued2016-10-11
dc.identifier.citationImaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. 2016, Nat Rev Clin Oncolen
dc.identifier.issn1759-4782
dc.identifier.pmid27725679
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/620035
dc.description.abstractImaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Nature reviews. Clinical oncologyen
dc.titleImaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentCRUK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre in Cambridge and Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKen
dc.identifier.journalNature Reviews. Clinical Oncologyen
refterms.dateFOA2018-12-17T14:45:48Z
html.description.abstractImaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
nrclinonc.2016.162.pdf
Size:
2.326Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Full text, Open Access Article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record