Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Predicting tumour response

, a , b , a , b , a , c

Cancer Imaging

e-Med

Predict, response, tumour, cancer, imaging, biomarker

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Response prediction is an important emerging concept in oncologic imaging, with tailored, individualized treatment regimens increasingly becoming the standard of care. This review aims to define tumour response and illustrate the ways in which imaging techniques can demonstrate tumour biological characteristics that provide information on the likely benefit to be received by treatment. Two imaging approaches are described: identification of therapeutic targets and depiction of the treatment-resistant phenotype. The former approach is exemplified by the use of radionuclide imaging to confirm target expression before radionuclide therapy but with angiogenesis imaging and imaging correlates for genetic response predictors also demonstrating potential utility. Techniques to assess the treatment-resistant phenotype include demonstration of hypoperfusion with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), depiction of necrosis with diffusion-weighted MRI, imaging of hypoxia and tumour adaption to hypoxia, and 99mTc-MIBI imaging of P-glycoprotein mediated drug resistance. To date, introduction of these techniques into clinical practice has often been constrained by inadequate cross-validation of predictive criteria and lack of verification against appropriate response end points such as survival. With further refinement, imaging predictors of response could play an important role in oncology, contributing to individualization of therapy based on the specific tumour phenotype. This ability to predict tumour response will have implications for improving efficacy of treatment, cost-effectiveness and omission of futile therapy.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 75

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

      Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma.

        Standardized response criteria are needed to interpret and compare clinical trials and for approval of new therapeutic agents by regulatory agencies. The International Working Group response criteria (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol 17:1244, 1999) were widely adopted, but required reassessment because of identified limitations and the increased use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and flow cytometry. The International Harmonization Project was convened to provide updated recommendations. New guidelines are presented incorporating PET, IHC, and flow cytometry for definitions of response in non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Standardized definitions of end points are provided. We hope that these guidelines will be adopted widely by study groups, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and regulatory agencies to facilitate the development of new and more effective therapies to improve the outcome of patients with lymphoma.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer.

          The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) cetuximab has been proven to be efficient in metastatic colorectal cancer. The molecular mechanisms underlying the clinical response to this drug remain unknown. Genetic alterations of the intracellular effectors involved in EGFR-related signaling pathways may have an effect on response to this targeted therapy. In this study, tumors from 30 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by cetuximab were screened for KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation by direct sequencing and for EGFR copy number by chromogenic in situ hybridization. Eleven of the 30 patients (37%) responded to cetuximab. A KRAS mutation was found in 13 tumors (43%) and was significantly associated with the absence of response to cetuximab (KRAS mutation in 0% of the 11 responder patients versus 68.4% of the 19 nonresponder patients; P = 0.0003). The overall survival of patients without KRAS mutation in their tumor was significantly higher compared with those patients with a mutated tumor (P = 0.016; median, 16.3 versus 6.9 months). An increased EGFR copy number was found in 3 patients (10%) and was significantly associated with an objective tumor response to cetuximab (P = 0.04). In conclusion, in this study, KRAS mutations are a predictor of resistance to cetuximab therapy and are associated with a worse prognosis. The EGFR amplification, which is not as frequent as initially reported, is also associated with response to this treatment.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            aDepartment of Radiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; bSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Southern Clinical School, Brisbane, Australia; cInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, UK
            Author notes
            Corresponding address: Dr Samuel Kyle, Department of Radiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia. Email: samuel_kyle@ 123456health.qld.gov.au
            Journal
            Cancer Imaging
            Cancer Imaging
            CI
            Cancer Imaging
            Cancer Imaging
            e-Med
            1740-5025
            1470-7330
            2013
            23 September 2013
            : 13
            : 3
            : 381-390
            24061161
            3783115
            10.1102/1470-7330.2013.9039
            ci139039
            © 2013 International Cancer Imaging Society
            Categories
            Review

            biomarker, predict, response, tumour, cancer, imaging

            Comments

            Comment on this article