4.7 Review

The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 22, Pages 7967-7985

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1302

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA042045] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As addressed by the recent Food and Drug Administration Critical Path Initiative, tools are urgently needed to increase the speed, efficiency and cost effectiveness of drug development for cancer and other diseases. Molecular imaging probes developed based on recent scientific advances have a great potential as oncological drug development tools. Basic science studies using molecular imaging probes can help to identify and characterize disease-specific targets for oncologic drug therapy. Imaging end points, based on these disease-specific biomarkers, hold great promise to better define, stratify, and enrich study groups and to provide direct biological measures of response. Imaging-based biomarkers also have promise for speeding drug evaluation by supplementing or replacing preclinical and clinical pharmocokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations, including target interaction and modulation. Such analysis may be particularly valuable in early comparative studies among candidates designed to interact with the same molecular target. Finally, as response biomarkers, imaging end points that characterize tumor vitality, growth, or apoptosis can also serve as early surrogates of therapy success. this article outlines the scientific basis for oncology imaging probes and presents examples of probes that could facilitate progress. The current regulatory opportunities for new and existing probe development and testing are also reviewed, with a focus on recent Food and Drug Administration guidance to facilitate early clinical development of promising probes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available