4.6 Review

Vessel calibre-a potential MRI biomarker of tumour response in clinical trials

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 566-584

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.126

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, NIH, US Department of Human and Health Services [NCT00254943, T32-CA009502, NCT00756106, NCT00662506, S10 RR021110-01A1, P01CA80124]
  2. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [2013069]
  3. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  4. Instrumentarium Research Foundation
  5. Academy of Finland
  6. Paulo Foundation
  7. Finnish Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding of the importance of blood vessels and angiogenesis in cancer has increased considerably over the past decades, and the assessment of tumour vessel calibre and structure has become increasingly important for in vivo monitoring of therapeutic response. The preferred method for in vivo imaging of most solid cancers is MRI, and the concept of vessel-calibre MRI has evolved since its initial inception in the early 1990s. Almost a quarter of a century later, unlike traditional contrast-enhanced MRI techniques, vessel-calibre MRI remains widely inaccessible to the general clinical community. The narrow availability of the technique is, in part, attributable to limited awareness and a lack of imaging standardization. Thus, the role of vessel-calibre MRI in early phase clinical trials remains to be determined. By contrast, regulatory approvals of antiangiogenic agents that are not directly cytotoxic have created an urgent need for clinical trials incorporating advanced imaging analyses, going beyond traditional assessments of tumour volume. To this end, we review the field of vessel-calibre MRI and summarize the emerging evidence supporting the use of this technique to monitor response to anticancer therapy. We also discuss the potential use of this biomarker assessment in clinical imaging trials and highlight relevant avenues for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据