Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Magnetic Resonance in Drug Development

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Modern Magnetic Resonance

  • 194 Accesses

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry struggles with increasing costs to confidently validate drug targets and develop optimized drug molecules that successfully and safely translate efficacy into the clinic. Clinical prediction of success is imperative to reduce and recoup the costs associated with drug development. Strategies to enable clinical prediction rely on new technologies that can be employed earlier in the drug discovery process. In vivo imaging technologies, such as MRI, PET, SPECT, CT, and optical, are being employed exponentially to almost every aspect of the drug discovery process for earlier assessments. Quantitative imaging approaches for assessing disease end points are required to provide the precision to understand the efficacy and toxicity of new medicines rather than relying on blunt measures of clinical scoring. The bidirectional translation of preclinical and clinical drugs and drug assessments has provided new insights into the profiles of disease and toxicity rather than “snapshots” of pathology that occur using conventional ex vivo techniques. MRI technology has developed significantly over the last 20 years with respect to speed of acquisition, higher resolutions, and better tissue contrast imaging techniques. MRI enables new image-based evidence to successfully translate new chemical entities into clinical practice. This imaging technique provides a means to quantify disease and detect unprecedented rare and common disease mechanisms, which enables new medicines to be developed that can improve the quality of human life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R, March R, Morgan P, Satterthwaite G, et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13(6):419–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Contag PR. Whole-animal cellular and molecular imaging to accelerate drug development. Drug Discov Today. 2002;7(10):555–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beam TR, Gilbert DN, Kunin CM. General guidelines for the clinical evaluation of anti-infective drug products. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15(Supplement 1):S5–S32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu Z-R. Application of biomedical imaging in drug discovery and development. Pharm Res. 2007;24(6):1170–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein FH. MR in mouse models of cardiac disease. NMR Biomed. 2007;20(3):238–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rudin M. Imaging in drug discovery and early clinical trials. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL, Kinahan PE, Chander S, Martinelli MA, et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology: impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3(6):223–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Meikle SR, Beekman FJ, Rose SE. Complementary molecular imaging technologies: high resolution SPECT, PET and MRI. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2006;3(2):187–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Atkinson DJ, Edelman R. Cineangiography of the heart in a single breath hold with a segmented turboFLASH sequence. Radiology. 1991;178(2):357–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(2):189–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Golman K, Petersson JS. Metabolic imaging and other applications of hyperpolarized 13 C 1. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(8):932–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Möller HE, Chen XJ, Saam B, Hagspiel KD, Johnson GA, Altes TA, et al. MRI of the lungs using hyperpolarized noble gases. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(6):1029–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beckmann N, Cannet C, Karmouty-Quintana H, Tigani B, Zurbruegg S, Blé F-X, et al. Lung MRI for experimental drug research. Eur J Radiol. 2007;64(3):381–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sobol WT. Recent advances in MRI technology: implications for image quality and patient safety. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2012;26(4):393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson A, Montalban X, Barkhof F, Brochet B, Filippi M, Miller D, et al. Diagnostic criteria for primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a position paper. Ann Neurol. 2000;47(6):831–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dean DG. The role of MRI in musculoskeletal practice: a clinical perspective. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19(3):152–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Neubauer S, Beer M, Landschütz W, Sandstede J, Seyfarth T, Lipke C, et al. Absolute quantification of high energy phosphate metabolites in normal, hypertrophied and failing human myocardium. MAGMA. 2000;11(1–2):73–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cosmus TC, Parizh M. Advances in whole-body MRI magnets. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond. 2011;21(3):2104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lemieux L, Hagemann G, Krakow K, Woermann FG. Fast, accurate, and reproducible automatic segmentation of the brain in T1-weighted volume MRI data. Magn Reson Med. 1999;42(1):127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller D, Rudge P, Johnson G, Kendall B, Macmanus D, Moseley I, et al. Serial gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1988;111(4):927–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Group IMSS. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 1993;43(4):655–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raynauld J-P, Martel-Pelletier J, Bias P, Laufer S, Haraoui B, Choquette D, et al. Protective effects of licofelone, a 5-lipoxygenase and cyclooxygenase inhibitor, versus naproxen on cartilage loss in knee osteoarthritis: a first multicentre clinical trial using quantitative MRI. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):938–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wullschleger S, Garcia-Martinez JM, Duce SL. Quantitative MRI establishes the efficacy of PI3K inhibitor (GDC-0941) multi-treatments in PTEN-deficient mice lymphoma. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(2):415–20.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yablonskiy DA, Haacke EM. Theory of NMR signal behavior in magnetically inhomogeneous tissues: the static dephasing regime. Magn Reson Med. 1994;32(6):749–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vernooij MW, Haag MD, van der Lugt A, Hofman A, Krestin GP, Stricker BH, et al. Use of antithrombotic drugs and the presence of cerebral microbleeds: the Rotterdam Scan Study. Arch Neurol. 2009;66(6):714–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mosher TJ, Dardzinski BJ, editors. Cartilage MRI T2 relaxation time mapping: overview and applications. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2004;8:355–68. Copyright© 2004 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cheng HLM, Wright GA. Rapid high-resolution T1 mapping by variable flip angles: accurate and precise measurements in the presence of radiofrequency field inhomogeneity. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(3):566–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mikac U, Sepe A, Kristl J, Baumgartner S. A new approach combining different MRI methods to provide detailed view on swelling dynamics of xanthan tablets influencing drug release at different pH and ionic strength. J Control Release. 2010;145(3):247–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Detre JA, Zhang W, Roberts DA, Silva AC, Williams DS, Grandis DJ, et al. Tissue specific perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. NMR Biomed. 1994;7(1–2):75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Østergaard L. Principles of cerebral perfusion imaging by bolus tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(6):710–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Geraldes CF, Laurent S. Classification and basic properties of contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2009;4(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paldino MJ, Barboriak DP. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(2):277–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T 1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(3):223–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Parker GJ, Tofts PS. Pharmacokinetic analysis of neoplasms using contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(2):130–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med. 1991;17(2):357–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf K, et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(6):1232–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yuan C, Kerwin WS, Ferguson MS, Polissar N, Zhang S, Cai J, et al. Contrast-enhanced high resolution MRI for atherosclerotic carotid artery tissue characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15(1):62–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Low RN, Francis IR, Politoske D, Bennett M. Crohn’s disease evaluation: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR imaging and single-phase helical CT scanning. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11(2):127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, Jackson A, Waterton JC, Parker GJ. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23(4):554–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sinkus R, Van Beers BE, Vilgrain V, DeSouza N, Waterton JC. Apparent diffusion coefficient from magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(4):425–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tatlisumak T, Carano RA, Takano K, Opgenorth TJ, Sotak CH, Fisher M. A novel endothelin antagonist, A-127722, attenuates ischemic lesion size in rats with temporary middle cerebral artery occlusion a diffusion and perfusion MRI study. Stroke. 1998;29(4):850–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mardor Y, Roth Y, Lidar Z, Jonas T, Pfeffer R, Maier SE, et al. Monitoring response to convection-enhanced taxol delivery in brain tumor patients using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Res. 2001;61(13):4971–3.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kidwell CS, Saver JL, Mattiello J, Starkman S, Vinuela F, Duckwiler G, et al. Thrombolytic reversal of acute human cerebral ischemic injury shown by diffusion/perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 2000;47(4):462–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986;161(2):401–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Koh D-M, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1351–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Burdette JH, Elster AD, Ricci PE. Acute cerebral infarction: quantification of spin-density and T2 shine-through phenomena on diffusion-weighted MR images. Radiology. 1999;212(2):333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Joo I, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for monitoring the therapeutic efficacy of the vascular disrupting agent CKD-516 in rabbit VX2 liver tumors. Radiology. 2014;272(2):417–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Larsson HB, Rosenbaum S, Fritz-Hansen T. Quantification of the effect of water exchange in dynamic contrast MRI perfusion measurements in the brain and heart. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(2):272–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Dalvit C, Pevarello P, Tatò M, Veronesi M, Vulpetti A, Sundström M. Identification of compounds with binding affinity to proteins via magnetization transfer from bulk water. J Biomol NMR. 2000;18(1):65–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pellecchia M, Sem DS, Wüthrich K. NMR in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1(3):211–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wolff SD, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 1989;10(1):135–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schmitt B, Zbýň Š, Stelzeneder D, Jellus V, Paul D, Lauer L, et al. Cartilage quality assessment by using glycosaminoglycan chemical exchange saturation transfer and 23Na MR imaging at 7 T. Radiology. 2011;260(1):257–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Abramson SB, Attur M, Yazici Y. Prospects for disease modification in osteoarthritis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2006;2(6):304–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Weissleder R, Cheng HC, Bogdanova A, Bogdanov A. Magnetically labeled cells can be detected by MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(1):258–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang Y-XJ, Hussain SM, Krestin GP. Superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agents: physicochemical characteristics and applications in MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(11):2319–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J, Rabito C, Bengele H, Josephson L. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: characterization of a new class of contrast agents for MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;175(2):489–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Varallyay P, Nesbit G, Muldoon LL, Nixon RR, Delashaw J, Cohen JI, et al. Comparison of two superparamagnetic viral-sized iron oxide particles ferumoxides and ferumoxtran-10 with a gadolinium chelate in imaging intracranial tumors. Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(4):510–9.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Reimer P, Balzer T. Ferucarbotran (Resovist): a new clinically approved RES-specific contrast agent for contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver: properties, clinical development, and applications. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(6):1266–76.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wang Y-XJ. Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast agents: current status of clinical application. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2011;1(1):35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  62. McAteer MA, Schneider JE, Ali ZA, Warrick N, Bursill CA, von zur Muhlen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of endothelial adhesion molecules in mouse atherosclerosis using dual-targeted microparticles of iron oxide. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28(1):77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lanza GM, Lorenz CH, Fischer SE, Scott MJ, Cacheris WP, Kaufmann RJ, et al. Enhanced detection of thrombi with a novel fibrin-targeted magnetic resonance imaging agent. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:S173–S6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Botnar RM, Perez AS, Witte S, Wiethoff AJ, Laredo J, Hamilton J, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of acute and subacute thrombosis using a fibrin-binding magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Circulation. 2004;109(16):2023–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Winter PM, Morawski AM, Caruthers SD, Fuhrhop RW, Zhang H, Williams TA, et al. Molecular imaging of angiogenesis in early-stage atherosclerosis with αvβ3-integrin–targeted nanoparticles. Circulation. 2003;108(18):2270–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sipkins DA, Cheresh DA, Kazemi MR, Nevin LM, Bednarski MD, Li K. Detection of tumor angiogenesis in vivo by alphaVbeta3-targeted magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Med. 1998;4(5):623–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Anderson SA, Rader RK, Westlin WF, Null C, Jackson D, Lanza GM, et al. Magnetic resonance contrast enhancement of neovasculature with αvβ3-targeted nanoparticles. Magn Reson Med. 2000;44(3):433–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Beckmann N, Mueggler T, Allegrini PR, Laurent D, Rudin M. From anatomy to the target: contributions of magnetic resonance imaging to preclinical pharmaceutical research. Anat Rec. 2001;265(2):85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. McAteer MA, Akhtar AM, von zur Muhlen C, Choudhury RP. An approach to molecular imaging of atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular inflammation using microparticles of iron oxide. Atherosclerosis. 2010;209(1):18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. McAteer MA, Mankia K, Ruparelia N, Jefferson A, Nugent HB, Stork L-A, et al. A leukocyte-mimetic magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent homes rapidly to activated endothelium and tracks with atherosclerotic lesion macrophage content. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2012;32(6):1427–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. McAteer MA, Choudhury RP. Targeted molecular imaging of vascular inflammation in cardiovascular disease using nano- and micro-sized agents. Vascul Pharmacol. 2013;58(1):31–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bergin C, Pauly J, Macovski A. Lung parenchyma: projection reconstruction MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;179(3):777–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Gold GE, Thedens DR, Pauly JM, Fechner K, Bergman G, Beaulieu CF, et al. MR imaging of articular cartilage of the knee: new methods using ultrashort TEs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(5):1223–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Hennel F. MRI with zero echo time: hard versus sweep pulse excitation. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(2):379–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ahn C, Kim J, Cho Z. High-speed spiral-scan echo planar NMR imaging-I. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1986;5(1):2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Irarrazabal P, Nishimura DG. Fast three dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33(5):656–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Nielles-Vallespin S, Weber M-A, Bock M, Bongers A, Speier P, Combs SE, et al. 3D radial projection technique with ultrashort echo times for sodium MRI: clinical applications in human brain and skeletal muscle. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57(1):74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Beckmann N, Tigani B, Mazzoni L, Fozard JR. Techniques: magnetic resonance imaging of the lung provides potential for non-invasive preclinical evaluation of drugs. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003;24(10):550–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Takahashi M, Togao O, Obara M, van Cauteren M, Ohno Y, Kuro-O M, et al. Ultra-short echo time (UTE) MR imaging of the lung: comparison between normal and emphysematous lungs in mutant mice. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32(2):326–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Strobel K, Hoerr V, Schmid F, Wachsmuth L, Löffler B, Faber C. Early detection of lung inflammation: exploiting T1-effects of iron oxide particles using UTE MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(6):1924–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Mentore K, Froh DK, de Lange EE, Brookeman JR, Paget-Brown AO, Altes TA. Hyperpolarized He 3 MRI of the lung in cystic fibrosis: assessment at baseline and after bronchodilator and airway clearance treatment. Acad Radiol. 2005;12(11):1423–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Bianchi A, Ozier A, Ousova O, Raffard G, Crémillieux Y. Ultrashort-TE MRI longitudinal study and characterization of a chronic model of asthma in mice: inflammation and bronchial remodeling assessment. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(11):1451–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Bianchi MC, Tosetti M, Battini R, Manca ML, Mancuso M, Cioni G, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy of mitochondrial diseases: analysis of brain metabolic abnormalities and their possible diagnostic relevance. Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(10):1958–66.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rajagopalan B, Blackledge M, McKenna W, Bolas N, Radda G. Measurement of phosphocreatine to ATP ratio in normal and diseased human heart by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy using the rotating frame-depth selection techniques. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1987;508(1):321–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Li X, Jin H, Lu Y, Oh J, Chang S, Nelson SJ. Identification of MRI and 1H MRSI parameters that may predict survival for patients with malignant gliomas. NMR Biomed. 2004;17(1):10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Hoang T, Bluml S, Dubowitz D, Moats R, Kopyov O, Jacques D, et al. Quantitative proton-decoupled 31P MRS and 1H MRS in the evaluation of Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Neurology. 1998;50(4):1033–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Neubauer S, Horn M, Cramer M, Harre K, Newell JB, Peters W, et al. Myocardial phosphocreatine-to-ATP ratio is a predictor of mortality in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1997;96(7):2190–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Gupta R, Pandey R, Khan E, Mittal P, Gujral R, Chhabra D. Intracranial tuberculomas: MRI signal intensity correlation with histopathology and localised proton spectroscopy. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(3):443–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Yeung DK, Yang W-T, Tse GM. Breast cancer: in vivo proton MR spectroscopy in the characterization of histopathologic subtypes and preliminary observations in axillary node metastases 1. Radiology. 2002;225(1):190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Lanza GM, Yu X, Winter PM, Abendschein DR, Karukstis KK, Scott MJ, et al. Targeted antiproliferative drug delivery to vascular smooth muscle cells with a magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle contrast agent implications for rational therapy of restenosis. Circulation. 2002;106(22):2842–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Berglund M, Wieser ME. Isotopic compositions of the elements 2009 (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl Chem. 2011;83(2):397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Walker TG, Happer W. Spin-exchange optical pumping of noble-gas nuclei. Rev Mod Phys. 1997;69(2):629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Appelt S, Baranga AB-A, Erickson C, Romalis M, Young A, Happer W. Theory of spin-exchange optical pumping of 3 He and 129 Xe. Phys Rev A. 1998;58(2):1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hausser K, Stehlik D. Dynamic nuclear polarization in liquids. Adv Magn Reson. 1968;3:79–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. McCarney ER, Armstrong BD, Lingwood MD, Han S. Hyperpolarized water as an authentic magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104(6):1754–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Rzedzian R, Mansfield P, Doyle M, Guilfoyle D, Chapman B, Coupland R, et al. Real-time nuclear magnetic resonance clinical imaging in paediatrics. Lancet. 1983;322(8362):1281–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Glöggler S, Raue M, Colell J, Türschmann P, Liebisch A, Mang T, et al. Online monitoring of intelligent polymers for drug release with hyperpolarized xenon. ChemPhysChem. 2012;13(18):4120–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Edwards R, Wilkie D, Dawson MJ, Gordon R, Shaw D. Clinical use of nuclear magnetic resonance in the investigation of myopathy. Lancet. 1982;319(8274):725–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Bottomley PA, Hardy CJ, Roemer PB, Mueller OM. Proton-decoupled, overhauser-enhanced, spatially localized carbon-13 spectroscopy in humans. Magn Reson Med. 1989;12(3):348–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Khemtong C, Carpenter NR, Lumata LL, Merritt ME, Moreno KX, Kovacs Z, et al. Hyperpolarized 13C NMR detects rapid drug-induced changes in cardiac metabolism. Magn Reson Med. 2015;74(2):312–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC, Group. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology. 2011;258(3):906–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Ellingson BM, Bendszus M, Boxerman J, Barboriak D, Erickson BJ, Smits M, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(9):1188–98.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Woodcock J, Woosley R. The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med. 2008;59:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. McGibney G, Smith M, Nichols S, Crawley A. Quantitative evaluation of several partial fourier reconstruction algorithms used in MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1993;30(1):51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. McKenzie CA, Yeh EN, Ohliger MA, Price MD, Sodickson DK. Self-calibrating parallel imaging with automatic coil sensitivity extraction. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(3):529–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Lustig M, Donoho DL, Santos JM, Pauly JM. Compressed sensing MRI. IEEE Signal Process Mag. 2008;25(2):72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM. Sparse MRI: the application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58(6):1182–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Cheng JY, Hanneman K, Zhang T, Alley MT, Lai P, Tamir JI, et al. Comprehensive motion-compensated highly accelerated 4D flow MRI with ferumoxytol enhancement for pediatric congenital heart disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(6):1355–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Misiak M, Koźmiński W, Chmurski K, Kazimierczuk K. Study of near-symmetric cyclodextrins by compressed sensing 2D NMR. Magn Reson Chem. 2013;51(2):110–5.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Davis ME, Brewster ME. Cyclodextrin-based pharmaceutics: past, present and future. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(12):1023–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, Liu K, Sunshine JL, Duerk JL, et al. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature. 2013;495(7440):187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Lesko LJ, Rowland M, Peck CC, Blaschke TF. Optimizing the science of drug development: opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40(8):803–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. (ESR) ESoR. Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting – a promising new approach to obtain standardized imaging biomarkers from MRI. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(2):163–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Freeborough PA, Fox NC. MR image texture analysis applied to the diagnosis and tracking of Alzheimer’s disease. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998;17(3):475–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Sutton RN, Hall EL. Texture measures for automatic classification of pulmonary disease. IEEE Trans Comput. 1972;21(7):667–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Kjaer L, Ring P, Thomsen C, Henriksen O. Texture analysis in quantitative MR imaging: tissue characterisation of normal brain and intracranial tumours at 1.5 T. Acta Radiol. 1995;36(2):127–35.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Chen G, Jespersen S, Pedersen M, Pang Q, Horsman MR, Stødkilde JH. Evaluation of anti-vascular therapy with texture analysis. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(5):3399–405.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Goh V, Ganeshan B, Nathan P, Juttla JK, Vinayan A, Miles KA. Assessment of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell cancer: CT texture as a predictive biomarker. Radiology. 2011;261(1):165–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Box 218, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom

    J. D. Kaggie & M. J. Graves

  2. In Vivo Imaging (UK), Bioimaging, Platform Technology & Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2NY, UK

    M. V. Haase, S. P. Campbell, C. M. Wright & K. K. Changani

  3. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom

    J. D. Kaggie & M. J. Graves

Authors
  1. J. D. Kaggie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. V. Haase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. P. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. M. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. J. Graves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. K. Changani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. K. Changani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, United Kingdom

    Graham A. Webb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kaggie, J.D., Haase, M.V., Campbell, S.P., Wright, C.M., Graves, M.J., Changani, K.K. (2017). Role of Magnetic Resonance in Drug Development. In: Webb, G. (eds) Modern Magnetic Resonance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28275-6_101-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28275-6_101-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28275-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28275-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Chemistry and Mat. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Chemistry, Materials and Physics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation