ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2020
Prediction of optimal contrast times post-imaging agent administration to inform personalized fluorescence-guided surgery.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying Imaging Agent Binding and Dissociation in 3-D Cancer Spheroid Tissue Culture Using Paired-Agent Principles.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Smartphone-based dual radiometric fluorescence and white-light imager for quantification of protoporphyrin IX in skin.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023Article
- 3D-Printed Tumor Phantoms for Assessment of In Vivo Fluorescence Imaging Analysis Methods.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Article
- High-Contrast Detection of Somatostatin Receptor Subtype-2 for Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Comparison of cRGDfK Peptide Probes with Appended Shielded Heptamethine Cyanine Dye (ACS omega · 2021Article
- Receptor-Targeted Fluorescence-Guided Surgery With Low Molecular Weight Agents.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
significanceFluorescence guidance in cancer surgery (FGS) using molecular-targeted contrast agents is accelerating, yet the influence of individual patients' physiology on the optimal time to perform surgery post-agent-injection is not fully understood.
aimDevelop a mathematical framework and analytical expressions to estimate patient-specific time-to-maximum contrast after imaging agent administration for single- and paired-agent (coadministration of targeted and control agents) protocols. APPROACH: The framework was validated in mouse subcutaneous xenograft studies for three classes of imaging agents: peptide, antibody mimetic, and antibody. Analytical expressions estimating time-to-maximum-tumor-discrimination potential were evaluated over a range of parameters using the validated framework for human cancer parameters.
resultsCorrelations were observed between simulations and matched experiments and metrics of tumor discrimination potential (p < 0.05). Based on human cancer physiology, times-to-maximum contrast for peptide and antibody mimetic agents were <200 min, >15 h for antibodies, on average. The analytical estimates of time-to-maximum tumor discrimination performance exhibited errors of <10 % on average, whereas patient-to-patient variance is expected to be greater than 100%.
conclusionWe demonstrated that analytical estimates of time-to-maximum contrast in FGS carried out patient-to-patient can outperform the population average time-to-maximum contrast used currently in clinical trials. Such estimates can be made with preoperative DCE-MRI (or similar) and knowledge of the targeted agent's binding affinity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.