| Title |
Companion diagnostics and molecular imaging-enhanced approaches for oncology clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s87561 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ronald L Van Heertum, Robert Scarimbolo, Robert Ford, Eli Berdougo, Michael O’Neal |
| Abstract |
In the era of personalized medicine, diagnostic approaches are helping pharmaceutical and biotechnology sponsors streamline the clinical trial process. Molecular assays and diagnostic imaging are routinely being used to stratify patients for treatment, monitor disease, and provide reliable early clinical phase assessments. The importance of diagnostic approaches in drug development is highlighted by the rapidly expanding global cancer diagnostics market and the emergent attention of regulatory agencies worldwide, who are beginning to offer more structured platforms and guidance for this area. In this paper, we highlight the key benefits of using companion diagnostics and diagnostic imaging with a focus on oncology clinical trials. Nuclear imaging using widely available radiopharmaceuticals in conjunction with molecular imaging of oncology targets has opened the door to more accurate disease assessment and the modernization of standard criteria for the evaluation, staging, and treatment responses of cancer patients. Furthermore, the introduction and validation of quantitative molecular imaging continues to drive and optimize the field of oncology diagnostics. Given their pivotal role in disease assessment and treatment, the validation and commercialization of diagnostic tools will continue to advance oncology clinical trials, support new oncology drugs, and promote better patient outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,516,483
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#860
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,733
of 276,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#48
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.