Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32117739›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020

Advanced Cancer Imaging Applied in the Comparative Setting.

David M Vail, Amy K LeBlanc, Robert Jeraj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Safety and Feasibility of InfusingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The Promise of Combining Radiation Therapy With Immunotherapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2020
    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

3 authors.

David M VailDepartment of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Amy K LeBlancComparative Oncology Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Robert JerajCarbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Funding

COP LaboratoryZIABC011692 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI LEBLANC, AMY · 2016 to 2025
$15.5M
U.W. RADIOLOGICAL SCIENCES TRAINING PROGRAMT32CA009206 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bryan Patrick Bednarz · 1985 to 2026
$12.1M
Comparative Oncology Trials ConsortiumZIGBC011689 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI LEBLANC, AMY · 2016 to 2025
$859k
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for companion (pet) species with spontaneously arising tumors to act as surrogates for preclinical development of advanced cancer imaging technologies has become more apparent in the last decade. The utility of the companion model specifically centers around issues related to body size (including spatial target/normal anatomic characteristics), physical size and spatial distribution of metastasis, tumor heterogeneity, the presence of an intact syngeneic immune system and a syngeneic tumor microenvironment shaped by the natural evolution of the cancer. Companion species size allows the use of similar equipment, hardware setup, software, and scan protocols which provide the opportunity for standardization and harmonization of imaging operating procedures and quality assurance across imaging protocols, imaging hardware, and the imaged species. Murine models generally do not replicate the size and spatial distribution of human metastatic cancer and these factors strongly influence image resolution and dosimetry. The following review will discuss several aspects of comparative cancer imaging in more detail while providing several illustrative examples of investigational approaches performed or currently under exploration at our institutions. Topics addressed include a discussion on interested consortia; image quality assurance and harmonization; image-based biomarker development and validation; contrast agent and radionuclide tracer development; advanced imaging to assess and predict response to cytotoxic and immunomodulatory anticancer agents; imaging of the tumor microenvironment; development of novel theranostic approaches; cell trafficking assessment via non-invasive imaging; and intraoperative imaging to inform surgical oncology decision making. Taken in totality, these comparative opportunities predict that safety, diagnostic and efficacy data generated in companion species with naturally developing and progressing cancers would better recapitulate the human cancer condition than that of artificial models in small rodent systems and ultimately accelerate the integration of novel imaging technologies into clinical practice. It is our hope that the examples presented should serve to provide those involved in cancer investigations who are unfamiliar with available comparative methodologies an understanding of the potential utility of this approach.

Indexed as

biomarkerscancercaninecomparativeimagingPET/CTradiomicstheranostics

Identifiers

PMID32117739
PMCPMC7019008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.