Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39849494›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Translation of PET radiotracers for cancer imaging: recommendations from the National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) consensus meeting.

Martina A McAteer, Daniel R McGowan, Gary J R Cook, Hing Y Leung, Tony Ng, James P B O'Connor, Luigi Aloj, Anna Barnes, Phil J Blower, Kevin M Brindle and 30 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

40 authors.

Martina A McAteerDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. martina.mcateer@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7350-4651
Daniel R McGowanDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6880-5687
Gary J R CookSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8732-8134
Hing Y LeungCRUK Scotland Institute, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3933-3975
Tony NgSchool of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3894-5619
James P B O'ConnorDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4044-8497
Luigi AlojDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7452-4961
Anna BarnesSoutheast Region, Office of the Chief Scientific Officer, NHS-England, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6902-214X
Phil J BlowerSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6290-1590
Kevin M BrindleCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-6287
John BraunRMH Radiotherapy Focus Group & RMH Biomedical Research Centre Consumer Group, Sutton, UK.
Craig BuckleySiemens Healthcare Limited, Camberley, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-3795-5031
Daniel DarianSiemens Healthcare Limited, Camberley, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8838-746X
Paul EvansGE HealthCare, Pharmaceutical Diagnostics, Chalfont St. Giles, UK.
Vicky GohSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2321-8091
David GraingerMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3084-3407
Carol GreenPatient and Public Representative, Oxford, UK.
Matt G HallNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
Thomas A HardingProstate Cancer UK, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0973-0302
Catherine D G HinesGSK, Collegeville, PA, USA.
Simon J HollingsworthLate Development Oncology, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Penny L Hubbard CristinacceDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4213-3234
Rowland O IllingDepartment of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Martin LeeClinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Baptiste LeurentDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6420-6567
Sue MallettCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-8200
Radhouene NejiSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6543-4390
Natalia NororiProstate Cancer UK, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6611-118X
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0843-2468
Neel PatelDepartment of Radiology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9219-6340
Kieran PriorCancer Research UK, London, UK.
Thomas ReinerEvergreen Theragnostics, Springfield, NJ, 07081, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7819-5480
Adam RetterCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3712-0965
Alasdair TaylorUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2535-4297
Jasper van der AartGSK Research and Development, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4382-1434
Joseph WoollcottProstate Cancer UK, London, UK.
Wai-Lup WongPET CT Department, Strickland Scanner Centre Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5214-3263
Jan van der MeulenDepartment of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-2335
Shonit PunwaniCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1014-0870
Geoff S HigginsDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. geoffrey.higgins@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3072-909X

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical translation of positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers for cancer management presents complex challenges. We have developed consensus-based recommendations for preclinical and clinical assessment of novel and established radiotracers, applied to image different cancer types, to improve the standardisation of translational methodologies and accelerate clinical implementation.

methodsA consensus process was developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) to gather insights from a multidisciplinary panel of 38 key stakeholders on the appropriateness of preclinical and clinical methodologies and stakeholder engagement for PET radiotracer translation. Panellists independently completed a consensus survey of 57 questions, rating each on a 9-point Likert scale. Subsequently, panellists attended a consensus meeting to discuss survey outcomes and readjust scores independently if desired. Survey items with median scores ≥ 7 were considered 'required/appropriate', ≤ 3 'not required/inappropriate', and 4-6 indicated 'uncertainty remained'. Consensus was determined as ~ 70% participant agreement on whether the item was 'required/appropriate' or 'not required/not appropriate'.

resultsConsensus was achieved for 38 of 57 (67%) survey questions related to preclinical and clinical methodologies, and stakeholder engagement. For evaluating established radiotracers in new cancer types, in vitro and preclinical studies were considered unnecessary, clinical pharmacokinetic studies were considered appropriate, and clinical dosimetry and biodistribution studies were considered unnecessary, if sufficient previous data existed. There was 'agreement without consensus' that clinical repeatability and reproducibility studies are required while 'uncertainty remained' regarding the need for comparison studies. For novel radiotracers, in vitro and preclinical studies, such as dosimetry and/or biodistribution studies and tumour histological assessment were considered appropriate, as well as comprehensive clinical validation. Conversely, preclinical reproducibility studies were considered unnecessary and 'uncertainties remained' regarding preclinical pharmacokinetic and repeatability evaluation. Other consensus areas included standardisation of clinical study protocols, streamlined regulatory frameworks and patient and public involvement. While a centralised UK clinical imaging research infrastructure and open access federated data repository were considered necessary, there was 'agreement without consensus' regarding the requirement for a centralised UK preclinical imaging infrastructure.

conclusionsWe provide consensus-based recommendations, emphasising streamlined methodologies and regulatory frameworks, together with active stakeholder engagement, for improving PET radiotracer standardisation, reproducibility and clinical implementation in oncology.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsConsensusHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesRadiopharmaceuticalsCancer imagingClinical validationConsensus guidelinesDiagnostic imagingImaging biomarkerPositron emission tomographyPreclinical evaluationRadiotracersRAND/UCLA Appropriateness MethodTranslational methods

Identifiers

PMID39849494
PMCPMC11756105

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.