4.3 Review

Development of Companion Diagnostics

期刊

SEMINARS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 47-56

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.09.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. Susan G. Komen Foundation [SAC140060]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, United States [DE-SE0012476]
  3. U.S. Department of Defense, United States [W81XWH-13-1-0406]
  4. National Institutes of Health, United States [U01CA148131, P30CA016520]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of individualized and targeted treatment and precision medicine requires the assessment of potential therapeutic targets to direct treatment selection. The biomarkers used to direct precision medicine, often termed companion diagnostics, for highly targeted drugs have thus far been almost entirely based on in vitro assay of biopsy material. Molecular imaging companion diagnostics offer a number of features complementary to those from in vitro assay, including the ability to measure the heterogeneity of each patient's cancer across the entire disease burden and to measure early changes in response to treatment. We discuss the use of molecular imaging methods as companion diagnostics for cancer therapy with the goal of predicting response to targeted therapy and measuring early (pharmacodynamic) response as an indication of whether the treatment has hit the target. We also discuss considerations for probe development for molecular imaging companion diagnostics, including both small-molecule probes and larger molecules such as labeled antibodies and related constructs. We then describe two examples where both predictive and pharmacodynamic molecular imaging markers have been tested in humans: endocrine therapy for breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 targeted therapy. The review closes with a summary of the items needed to move molecular imaging companion diagnostics from early studies into multicenter trials and into the clinic. Semin Nucl Med 46:47-56 (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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