Evaluation of the Efficacy of Targeted Imaging Agents

This paper presents our adaptation of Fryback and Thornbury’s hierarchical scheme for modeling the efficacy of diagnostic imaging systems. The original scheme was designed to evaluate new medical imaging systems but is less successful when applied to evaluate new radiopharmaceuticals. The proposed adaptation, which is specifically directed toward evaluating targeted imaging agents, has 6 levels: in vitro characterization, in vivo animal studies, initial human studies, impact on clinical care (change in management), impact on patient outcome, and societal efficacy. These levels, particularly the first four, implicitly define the sequence of studies needed to move an agent from the radiochemistry synthesis laboratory to the clinic. Completion of level 4 (impact on clinical care) should be sufficient for initial approval and reimbursement. We hope that the adapted scheme will help streamline the process and assist in bringing new targeted radiopharmaceuticals to approval over the next few years.

[1]  E. Wynendaele,et al.  Development of peptide and protein based radiopharmaceuticals. , 2014, Current pharmaceutical design.

[2]  B. Hillman,et al.  The Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance conference on research endpoints appropriate for medicare coverage of new PET radiopharmaceuticals. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[3]  Lucie Yang,et al.  Efficacy Considerations for U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval of Diagnostic Radiopharmaceuticals , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  R. Hicks,et al.  Not-So-Random Errors: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not the Only Evidence of the Value of PET , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  R. Holen,et al.  Not-So-Random Errors: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not the Only Evidence of the Value of PET , 2012 .

[6]  Ralf Schulze,et al.  The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. , 2012, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[7]  S. Sauerland,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials on PET: A Systematic Review of Topics, Design, and Quality , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  R. Simes,et al.  Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[9]  Paul M. Matthews,et al.  Positron emission tomography molecular imaging for drug development. , 2012, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[10]  W. Vach,et al.  Generating Evidence for Clinical Benefit of PET/CT in Diagnosing Cancer Patients , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  Jeroen G Lijmer,et al.  Proposals for a Phased Evaluation of Medical Tests , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  P. Valk Randomized controlled trials are not appropriate for imaging technology evaluation. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  S. Gambhir Decision analysis in nuclear medicine. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  J. Crothers,et al.  Localization of neuroendocrine tumours with [111In] DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy (Octreoscan): a comparative study with CT and MR imaging. , 1998, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[15]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[16]  R. Bale,et al.  Neuroendocrine Tumors: Comparison with Somatostatin Receptor Scintigraphy and CT , 2007 .