Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 332–335 | Cite as

Managers of Molecular Imaging Laboratories (MOMIL) Interest Group

Special Topic
  • 505 Downloads

Abstract

The Managers of Molecular Imaging Laboratories (MOMIL) interest group in the World Molecular Imaging Society provides a forum for exchanging information between researchers who manage molecular imaging laboratories and institutional core facilities. This information exchange includes operational procedures for acquiring and analyzing imaging results, including considerations for quality assurance and quality control, and animal handling and care for imaging studies. MOMIL also exchanges administrative policies, interactions with collaborators and clients, and industry relations. In addition to this comprehensive review of MOMIL, more information is available at http://www.wmis.org/.

Key words

Molecular imaging Laboratory management World Molecular Imaging Society 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Chris Contag and Raymond Gibson for helpful advice.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health Notice NOT-OD-10-138.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farber GK, Weiss L (2011) Core facilities: maximizing the return on investment. Sci Transl Med 3:95cm21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moses H, Braunwald E, Martin JB, Their SO (2002) Collaborating with industry—choices for the academic medical center. New England J Med 347:1371–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Reed DN, Sullivan DC (2011) A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 258:906–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurland BF, Gerstner ER, Mountz JM et al (2012) Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology trials. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1301–1312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abramson RG, Burton KR, Yu JPJ et al (2015) Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development. Acad Radiol 22:25–32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt H, Schwenzer NF, Bezrukov I et al (2014) On the quantification accuracy, homogeneity, and stability of simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging systems. Investigative Radiol 49:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore G (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38:8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallace CT, St. Croix CM, Watkins SC (2015) Data management and archiving in a large microscopy-and-imaging, multi-user facility: problems and solutions. Molec Reprod Dev 82:630–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McConville P (2011) Small animal preparation and handling in MRI. Methods Molec Biol 771:89–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Hildebrandt I et al (2006) Impact of animal handling on the results of 18F-FDG PET studies in mice. Jf Nucl Med 47(6):999–1006Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanhove C, Vandenberghe S, Bankstahl JP et al (2015) Accurate molecular imaging of small animals taking into account animal models, handling, anaesthesia, quality control and imaging system performance. EJNMMI physics 2:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals: Eighth Edition, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tremoleda JL, Kerton A, Gsell W (2012) Anaesthesia and physiological monitoring during in vivo imaging of laboratory rodents: considerations on experimental outcomes and animal welfare. EJNMMI Res 2:44CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lukasik VM, Gillies RJ (2003) Animal anaesthesia for in vivo magnetic resonance. NMR Biomed:459–467Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hildebrandt IJ, Su H, Weber WA (2008) Anesthesia and other considerations for in vivo imaging of small animals. ILAR J 49:17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hurst K, Litwak KN (2012) Accelerative forces associated with routine inhouse transportation of rodent cages. J Am Assoc Lab Animal Sci 51:544–547Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meder D, Morales M, Pepperkok R et al (2016) Institutional core facilities: prerequisite for breakthroughs in the life sciences. EMBO J 17:1088–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yao R, Lecomte R, Crawford ES (2012) Small-animal PET: what is it, and why do we need it? J Nucl Med Technol 40:157–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leblond F, Davis SC, Valdes PA, Pogue BW (2010) Pre-clinical whole-body fluorescence imaging: review of instruments, methods and applications. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 98:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS)Vanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Radiological SciencesVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical ImagingUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.University of Arizona Cancer CenterUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations