Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23914302›Full record

ArticleISRN biomathematics2012

Integrating Imaging Data into Predictive Biomathematical and Biophysical Models of Cancer.

Thomas E Yankeelov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ISRN biomathematics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author.

Thomas E YankeelovInstitute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, AA-1105 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA ; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, AA-1105 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, AA-1105 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA ; Department of Physics, Vanderbilt University, AA-1105 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA ; Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University, AA-1105 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA ; Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232-2310, USA.

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Jin Chen · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
TISSUE CoreP50CA098131 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PARK, BEN HO, PIETENPOL, JENNIFER A · 2003 to 2024
$48.7M
Multidisciplinary Training in Basic and Translational Imaging of CancerR25CA092043 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MANNING, HENRY CHARLES · 2001 to 2015
$6.6M
Quantitative MRI for Predicting Response of Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant TherapyU01CA142565 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI KARCZMAR, GREGORY S., NANDA, RITA · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
Evaluation and Validation of Imaging Biomarkers of Tumor Response to TreatmentR01CA138599 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MCINTYRE, JAMES OLIVER · 2010 to 2015
$2.2M
Training in Cellular and Molecular Imaging of CancerR25CA136440 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GORE, JOHN C · 2009 to 2013
$2.1M
Integrating Quantitative Imaging and Biophysical Models to Predict Tumor GrowthR21CA169387 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2014
$368k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098131NCI NIH HHS R01 CA138599NCI NIH HHS R21 CA169387NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092043NCI NIH HHS R25 CA136440NCI NIH HHS U01 CA142565NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While there is a mature literature on biomathematical and biophysical modeling in cancer, many of the existing approaches are not of clinical utility, as they require input data that are extremely difficult to obtain in an intact organism, and/or require a large number of assumptions on the free parameters included in the models. Thus, there has only been very limited application of such models to solve problems of clinical import. More recently, however, there has been increased activity at the interface of quantitative, noninvasive imaging data, and tumor mathematical modeling. In addition to reporting on bulk tumor morphology and volume, emerging imaging techniques can quantitatively report on for example tumor vascularity, glucose metabolism, cell density and proliferation, and hypoxia. In this paper, we first motivate the problem of predicting therapy response by highlighting some (acknowledged) shortcomings in existing methods. We then provide introductions to a number of representative quantitative imaging methods and describe how they are currently (and potentially can be) used to initialize and constrain patient specific mathematical and biophysical models of tumor growth and treatment response, thereby increasing the clinical utility of such approaches. We conclude by highlighting some of the exciting research directions when one integrates quantitative imaging and tumor modeling.

Identifiers

PMID23914302
PMCPMC3729405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.