1
|
Chan Wah Hak C, Dean JA, Hill MA, Somaiah N. The National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group Workshop: Translating Novel Discoveries to and from the Clinic. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:769-772. [PMID: 37741714 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/25/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- C Chan Wah Hak
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - J A Dean
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - M A Hill
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - N Somaiah
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moore SM, Quirk JD, Lassiter AW, Laforest R, Ayers GD, Badea CT, Fedorov AY, Kinahan PE, Holbrook M, Larson PEZ, Sriram R, Chenevert TL, Malyarenko D, Kurhanewicz J, Houghton AM, Ross BD, Pickup S, Gee JC, Zhou R, Gammon ST, Manning HC, Roudi R, Daldrup-Link HE, Lewis MT, Rubin DL, Yankeelov TE, Shoghi KI. Co-Clinical Imaging Metadata Information (CIMI) for Cancer Research to Promote Open Science, Standardization, and Reproducibility in Preclinical Imaging. Tomography 2023; 9:995-1009. [PMID: 37218941 PMCID: PMC10204428 DOI: 10.3390/tomography9030081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 04/30/2023] [Accepted: 05/04/2023] [Indexed: 05/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Preclinical imaging is a critical component in translational research with significant complexities in workflow and site differences in deployment. Importantly, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) precision medicine initiative emphasizes the use of translational co-clinical oncology models to address the biological and molecular bases of cancer prevention and treatment. The use of oncology models, such as patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), has ushered in an era of co-clinical trials by which preclinical studies can inform clinical trials and protocols, thus bridging the translational divide in cancer research. Similarly, preclinical imaging fills a translational gap as an enabling technology for translational imaging research. Unlike clinical imaging, where equipment manufacturers strive to meet standards in practice at clinical sites, standards are neither fully developed nor implemented in preclinical imaging. This fundamentally limits the collection and reporting of metadata to qualify preclinical imaging studies, thereby hindering open science and impacting the reproducibility of co-clinical imaging research. To begin to address these issues, the NCI co-clinical imaging research program (CIRP) conducted a survey to identify metadata requirements for reproducible quantitative co-clinical imaging. The enclosed consensus-based report summarizes co-clinical imaging metadata information (CIMI) to support quantitative co-clinical imaging research with broad implications for capturing co-clinical data, enabling interoperability and data sharing, as well as potentially leading to updates to the preclinical Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen M. Moore
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
| | - James D. Quirk
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
| | - Andrew W. Lassiter
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
| | - Richard Laforest
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
| | - Gregory D. Ayers
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA
| | - Cristian T. Badea
- Quantitative Imaging and Analysis Lab, Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Andriy Y. Fedorov
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Paul E. Kinahan
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Matthew Holbrook
- Quantitative Imaging and Analysis Lab, Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Peder E. Z. Larson
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | - Renuka Sriram
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | - Thomas L. Chenevert
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Dariya Malyarenko
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - John Kurhanewicz
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | | | - Brian D. Ross
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Stephen Pickup
- Department of Radiology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - James C. Gee
- Department of Radiology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Rong Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Seth T. Gammon
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Henry Charles Manning
- Department of Cancer Systems Imaging, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Raheleh Roudi
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Heike E. Daldrup-Link
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Michael T. Lewis
- Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Departments of Molecular and Cellular Biology and Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Daniel L. Rubin
- Departments of Biomedical Data Science, Radiology and Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Thomas E. Yankeelov
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Diagnostic Medicine and Oncology, Oden Institute for Computational and Engineering Sciences, Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Kooresh I. Shoghi
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wanigasekara J, Cullen PJ, Bourke P, Tiwari B, Curtin JF. Advances in 3D culture systems for therapeutic discovery and development in brain cancer. Drug Discov Today 2023; 28:103426. [PMID: 36332834 DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2022.103426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Revised: 10/07/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
This review focuses on recent advances in 3D culture systems that promise more accurate therapeutic models of the glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumor microenvironment (TME), such as the unique anatomical, cellular, and molecular features evident in human GBM. The key components of a GBM TME are outlined, including microbiomes, vasculature, extracellular matrix (ECM), infiltrating parenchymal and peripheral immune cells and molecules, and chemical gradients. 3D culture systems are evaluated against 2D culture systems and in vivo animal models. The main 3D culture techniques available are compared, with an emphasis on identifying key gaps in knowledge for the development of suitable platforms to accurately model the intricate components of the GBM TME.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janith Wanigasekara
- BioPlasma Research Group, School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Environmental Sustainability and Health Institute (ESHI), Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Food Biosciences, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland; FOCAS Research Institute, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Patrick J Cullen
- School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Paula Bourke
- School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Brijesh Tiwari
- Department of Food Biosciences, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
| | - James F Curtin
- BioPlasma Research Group, School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Environmental Sustainability and Health Institute (ESHI), Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; FOCAS Research Institute, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|