Imaging in Stem Cell Transplant and Cell-based Therapy

(Nancy Kaufman) #1

98


Acknowledgements This work was funded by Medical Research Endowment Fund, University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences. We acknowledge support from Dr. M.J.  Borrelli and technical
assistance from A. Terri. We would like to thank A. Greenway and J.K. Khan for animal handling
support.


References



  1. Yaccoby S, Barlogie B, Epstein J. Primary myeloma cells growing in SCID-hu mice: a model
    for studying the biology and treatment of myeloma and its manifestations. Blood. 1998;
    92:2908–13.

  2. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International
    myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet
    Oncol. 2014;15:e538–48.

  3. Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A, Racanelli V. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT: a review of
    diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med.
    2015;15:1–18.

  4. Genadieva-Stavric S, Cavallo F, Palumbo A.  New approaches to management of multiple
    myeloma. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2014;15:157–70.

  5. van Frits R, Giralt S, Barlogie B.  The future of autologous stem cell transplantation in
    myeloma. Blood. 2014;124:328–33.

  6. Ayed AO, Chang LJ, Moreb JS.  Immunotherapy for multiple myeloma: current status and
    future directions. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;96:399–412.

  7. Rotolo A, Caputo V, Karadimitris A. The prospects and promise of chimeric antigen receptor
    immunotherapy in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2016;173:350–64.

  8. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R, et al. Whole-body
    MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J  Roentgenol.
    2008;190:1097–104.

  9. Lutje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA. Role of radiogra-
    phy, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients
    with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2009;88:1161–8.

  10. de Jong M, Maina T. Of mice and humans: are they the same?--Implications in cancer transla-
    tional research. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:501–4.

  11. Liao CP, Zhong C, Saribekyan G, Bading J, Park R, Conti PS, et al. Mouse models of prostate
    adenocarcinoma with the capacity to monitor spontaneous carcinogenesis by bioluminescence
    or fluorescence. Cancer Res. 2007;67:7525–33.

  12. Suggitt M, Bibby MC. 50 years of preclinical anticancer drug screening: empirical to target-
    driven approaches. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:971–81.

  13. Zhang GJ, Chen TB, Bednar B, Connolly BM, Hargreaves R, Sur C, et al. Optical imaging of
    tumor cells in hollow fibers: evaluation of the antitumor activities of anticancer drugs and tar-
    get validation. Neoplasia. 2007;9:652–61.

  14. Cai W, Rao J, Gambhir SS, Chen X. How molecular imaging is speeding up antiangiogenic
    drug development. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5:2624–33.

  15. Sanchez E, Chen H, Berenson JR.  In vivo models of multiple myeloma (MM). Biochem
    Pharmacol. 2014;89:313–20.

  16. Shultz LD, Ishikawa F, Greiner DL. Humanized mice in translational biomedical research. Nat
    Rev Immunol. 2007;7:118–30.

  17. Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of mea-
    sured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival.
    Cancer. 1975;36:842–54.


T.K. Garg and T. Pandey
Free download pdf