Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21175573›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2011

Development of radiotracers for oncology--the interface with pharmacology.

Rohini Sharma, Eric Aboagye

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Easy and versatile preparation ofEJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. [ACS omega · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. AAPS PharmSciTech · 2021
    Article
  14. Quantitative PET in the 2020s: a roadmap.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rohini SharmaComprehensive Cancer Imaging Centre, Imperial College London Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London, UK.
Eric Aboagye

Funding

Cancer Research UK 10337Medical Research Council C2536/A10337Medical Research Council MC_U120081322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing role for positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology, particularly as a component of early phase clinical trials. As a non-invasive functional imaging modality, PET can be used to assess both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of novel therapeutics by utilizing radiolabelled compounds. These studies can provide crucial information early in the drug development process that may influence the further development of novel therapeutics. PET imaging probes can also be used as early biomarkers of clinical response and to predict clinical outcome prior to the administration of therapeutic agents. We discuss the role of PET imaging particularly as applied to phase 0 studies and discuss the regulations involved in the development and synthesis of novel radioligands. The review also discusses currently available tracers and their role in the assessment of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as applied to oncology.

Indexed as

Drug DesignPositron-Emission TomographyAntineoplastic AgentsDiagnostic ImagingGuidelines as TopicHumansRadioactive TracersRadioisotopesRadioligand AssayAntineoplastic AgentsRadioactive TracersRadioisotopes

Identifiers

PMID21175573
PMCPMC3166688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.