ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2012
The clinical evaluation of novel imaging methods for cancer management.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in neurotensin receptor 1-targeted molecular probes for tumor molecular imaging and therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- A PET probe targeting polyamine transport system for precise tumor diagnosis and therapy.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- A Review on the Use of Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials: Quality Assurance Strategies for Technical Validation.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Quantitative Imaging Informatics for Cancer Research.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Article
- Non-FDG PET/CT in Diagnostic Oncology: a pictorial review.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2019Review
- Advances in PET Diagnostics for Guiding Targeted Cancer Therapy and Studying In Vivo Cancer Biology.Current pathobiology reports · 2019Article
- NCTN Assessment on Current Applications of Radiomics in Oncology.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019Review
- HyperpolarizedNeoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Review
- Triply Loaded Nitroxide Brush-Arm Star Polymers Enable Metal-Free Millimetric Tumor Detection by Magnetic Resonance Imaging.ACS nano · 2018Article
- Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2017Review
- Performance Observations of Scanner Qualification of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers: Results From the Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence (CQIE) Program.Academic radiology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a long-standing interest in evaluating and using the known advantages of molecular and functional imaging, as well as assessing the potential of novel imaging agents and modalities, to improve clinical cancer research and cancer care. In this Perspectives article, I discuss the strategies and resources being used by the NCI to foster and enhance these evaluations. Although resource and logistical challenges abound in successfully mounting these trials, many examples exist of real and potential solutions to improve the clinical evaluation process for imaging agents and modalities in the USA and in international collaborations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23149888What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.