ABSTRACT
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. 490
References .......................................................................................................................... 490
Imaging departments today bear little relation to those of 25 years ago, with the old
equipment replaced by advanced scanning equipment, which use computed x-ray tomo-
graphy, ultrasound, magnetic resonance, and positron-emitting agents. Despite these
advances in medical imaging technology, the organization and function of most clinical
cancer imaging departments remain largely unchanged. The emphasis is still on a surgical
approach to disease, concentrating on the localization, size, shape, and appearance of tumor
lesions. The pressure for change has been limited by the lack of innovative pharmacological
approaches to cancer therapy, with surgical resection still giving the best chance of cure in
most solid tumors.1 As increasing knowledge of molecular medicine has been applied to the
study of cancer, treatment approaches and the ‘‘imaging’’ questions that these approaches
bring have changed dramatically. There is an increasing need to study biological processes
in vivo at both the preclinical and clinical stages of pharmacological development and
application. This is particularly true for treatments based on tumor angiogenesis.
