↓ Skip to main content

Imaging readouts as biomarkers or surrogate parameters for the assessment of therapeutic interventions

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Imaging readouts as biomarkers or surrogate parameters for the assessment of therapeutic interventions
Published in
European Radiology, March 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00330-007-0619-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Rudin

Abstract

Surrogate markers and biomarkers based on imaging readouts providing predictive information on clinical outcome are of increasing importance in the preclinical and clinical evaluation of novel therapies. They are primarily used in studies designed to establish evidence that the therapeutic principle is valid in a representative patient population or in an individual. A critical step in the development of (imaging) surrogates is validation: correlation with established clinical endpoints must be demonstrated. Biomarkers must not fulfill such stringent validation criteria; however, they should provide insight into mechanistic aspects of the therapeutic intervention (proof-of-mechanism) or document therapy efficacy with prognostic quality with regard to the long-term clinical outcome (proof of concept). Currently used imaging biomarkers provide structural, physiological and metabolic information. Novel imaging approaches annotate structure with molecular signatures that are tightly linked to the pathophysiology or to the therapeutic principle. These cellular and molecular imaging methods yield information on drug biodistribution, receptor expression and occupancy, and/or intra- and intercellular signaling. The design of novel target-specific imaging probes is closely related to the development of the therapeutic agents and should be considered early in the discovery phase. Significant technical and regulatory hurdles have to be overcome to foster the use of imaging biomarkers for clinical drug evaluation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 48%
Engineering 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 7 12%