Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: Anatomic and functional biomarkers

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 239-249

  Zhao, Binsheng ^a   Schwartz, Lawrence H ^a   Larson, Steve M ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Functional molecular imaging; Lung cancer; Response assessment; Surrogate biomarker; Volumetric CT

Indexed keywords

1 FLUORO 3 (2 NITRO 1 IMIDAZOLYL) 2 PROPANOL F 18; 16 ALPHA FLUORO 17 BETA ESTRADIOL F 18; 16 BETA FLUORO 5 ALPHA DIHYDROTESTOSTERONE F 18; 3' FLUOROTHYMIDINE F 18; ACETIC ACID C 11; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CHIMERIC ANTIBODY G250 I 124; COPPER 64; DIFFERENTIATION ANTIGEN; ERLOTINIB; FLUOROCYCLOBUTYLCARBOXYLIC ACID F 18; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROETHANYLARABINOSYLURIDINE F 18; FLUOROIODOARABINOSYLURIDEINE I 124; GADOLINIUM; GALLIUM 68; GEFITINIB; IMATINIB; IODINE 124; METHIONINE C 11; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY 3F8 I 124; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY A33 I 124; ONCOFETAL ANTIGEN; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; SODIUM I 124; TRACER; TRASTUZUMAB; TRASTUZUMAB CU 64; TRASTUZUMAB GA 68; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE MARKER; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG UPTAKE; ENDOCRINE SYSTEM; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; HYPOXIA; LUNG ALVEOLUS CELL CARCINOMA; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MONOTHERAPY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

ANIMALS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; FEMALE; FLUORINE RADIOISOTOPES; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 59249084312     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.056655     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Scher HI, Morris MJ, Kelly WK, et al. Prostate cancer clinical trial end point: "RECIST"ing a step backwards. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5223-5232.
2. Choi H. Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model. Curr Oncol Rep. 2005;7:307-311.
3. Choi HA, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumors treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753-1759.
4. Schwartz LH, Colville JAC, Ginsberg MS, et al. Measuring tumor response and shape change on CT: esophageal cancer as a paradigm. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1018-1023.
5. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause B, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:797-805.
6. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1979. Offset Publication No. 48.
7. Miller AB, Hogestraeten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207-214.
8. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
9. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer. 1976;38:388-394.
10. Warr D, Mckinney S, Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:1040-1046.
11. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz C, et al. Computerized quantification of tumor response in lung cancer: initial results. Radiology. 2006;241:892-898.
12. Zhao B, James L, Moskowitz C, et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. In press.
13. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2008:13-14.
14. Minna JD, Schiller JH. Neoplasms of the lung. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald, Harrison TR, et al., eds. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2004:506-516.
15. Sequist LV, Bell DW, Lynch TJ, Haber DA. Molecular predictors of response to epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:587-595.
16. Mac Manus MP, Hick RJ, Matthews JP, et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1285-1292.
17. Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, et al. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5:531-540.
18. Minn H, Joensuu H, Ahonen A, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose imaging: a method to assess the proliferative activity of human cancer in vivo. Cancer. 1988;61:1776-1781.
19. Herholz K, Rudolf J, Heiss WD. FDG transport and phosphorylation in human gliomas measured with dynamic PET. J Neurooncol. 1992;12:159-165.
20. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL. Does FDG uptake measure proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:414-419.
21. 18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:731-743.
22. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging: the visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159-171.
23. Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, et al. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1308-1312.
24. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771-1777.
25. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
26. 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1592-1598.
27. Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505-2509.
28. Kirov A, Danford C, Schmidtlein C, et al. Inaccuracy of fixed threshold segmentation for PET [abstract]. Med Phys. 2006;33(suppl):2039.
29. de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HFM, Corstens FHM, et al. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in NSCLC: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;110:1654-1664.
30. de Jong WK, van der Heijden HFM, Pruim J, et al. Prognostic value of different metabolic measurements with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a two-center study. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:1007-1012.
31. 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:744-751.
32. Su H, Bodenstein C, Dumont RA, et al. Monitoring tumor glucose utilization by positron emission tomography for the prediction of treatment response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5659-5667.
33. 18FDG-PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059-1066.
34. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D- glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
35. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for "qualified biomarker": functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:901-903.
36. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Seki H, et al. Fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging is negative in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1016-1020.
37. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Chest. 2006;129:393-401.
38. 18F-FLT uptake by positron emission tomography with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry in human lung tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3315-3323.
39. Cobben DC, Elsinga PH, Hoekstra HJ, et al. Is F-18-3′-fluoro- 3′-deoxy-L-thymidine useful for the staging and restaging of non-small cell lung cancer? J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1677-1682.
40. Muzi M, Vesselle H, Grieson JR, et al. The kinetic analysis of FLT (3′deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine) PET studies: validation studies in patients with lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:274-282.
41. Web WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 1):S36-S44.
42. Riely GJ, Kris MG, Zhao B, et al. Prospective assessment of discontinuation and re-initiation of erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib followed by the addition of everolimus. Clin Can Res. 2007;13:5150-5155.
43. 1-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223-232.
44. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch J, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1599-1610.
45. Evelhoch J, Garwood M, Vigneron D, et al. Expanding the use of magnetic resonance in the assessment of tumor response to therapy: workshop report. Cancer Res. 2005;65:7041-7044.
46. Divgi CR, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, et al. Preoperative characterisation of clear-cell renal carcinoma using iodine-124-labelled antibody chimeric G250 (124I-cG250) and PET in patients with renal masses: a phase I trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:304-310.
47. Gambhir SS, Herschman HR, Cherry SR, et al. Imaging transgene expression with radionuclide imaging technologies. Neoplasia. 2000;2:118-138.
48. 18F]fluoro-D-glucose. J Nucl Med. 1981;22:376-380.
49. 11C-methyl-L-methionine. Int J Appl Radiat Isot. 1976;27:357-363.
50. 18F]FLT for imaging of cellular proliferation in vivo. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:143-156.
51. Mankoff DA, Shields AF, Krohn KA. PET imaging of cellular proliferation. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43:153-167.
52. 18F]FACBC: improved preparation of labeling precursor and automated radiosynthesis. Appl Radiat Isot. 2003;58:657-666.
53. 18F]fluoro) estrogens: systematic investigation of a new series of fluorine-18-labeled estrogens as potential imaging agents for estrogen-receptor-positive breast tumors. J Med Chem. 1993;36:1619-1629.
54. 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:366-373.
55. 18F-fluorodihydrotestosterone: a new radiotracer for imaging prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1966-1971.
56. Bonasera TA, O'Neil JP, Xu M, et al. Preclinical evaluation of fluorine-18-labeled androgen receptor ligands in baboons. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1009-1015.
57. Rasey JS, Grunbaum Z, Magee S, et al. Characterization of radiolabeled fluoromisonidazole as a probe for hypoxic cells. Radiat Res. 1987;111:292-304.
58. Tjuvajev JG, Avril N, Oku T, et al. Imaging herpes virus thymidine kinase gene transfer and expression by positron emission tomography. Cancer Res. 1998;58:4333-4341.
59. 18F] FFEAU, and other imaging probes. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:637-648.
60. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123:309-314.
61. DeBerardinis RJ, Lum JJ, Hatzivassiliou G, et al. The biology of cancer: metabolic reprogramming fuels cell growth and proliferation. Cell Metab. 2008;7:11-20.
62. Deberardinis RJ, Sayed N, Ditsworth D, et al. Brick by brick: metabolism and tumor cell growth. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2008;18:54-61.
63. 18F-FLT and thymidine analogs: promise and pitfalls. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1432-1434.
64. Shields AF, Grierson JR, Dohmen BM, et al. Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med. 1998;4:1334-1336.
65. 18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography is a sensitive method for imaging the response of BRAF-dependent tumors to MEK inhibition. Cancer Res. 2007;67:11463-11469.
66. 18F]fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography in high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3552-3558.
67. Dehdashti F, Picus J, Michalski JM, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of androgen receptors in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:344-350.
68. Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Trinkaus K, et al. PET-based estradiol challenge as a predictive biomarker of response to endocrine therapy in women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. March 9, 2008. Epub ahead of print.
69. 124I PET and 3-dimensional-internal dosimetry (3D-ID) software. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1366-1372.
70. Thomlinson RH, Gray LH. The histological structure of some human lung cancers and the possible implications for radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 1955;9:539-549.
71. Vaupel P, Mayer A. Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007;26:225-239.
72. 18F-fluoromisonidazole in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:235-242.
73. Rajendran JG, Schwartz DL, O'Sullivan J, et al. Tumor hypoxia imaging with [F-18] fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5435-5441.
74. 60Cu-labeled diacetyl-bis(N4- methylthiosemicarbazone). J Nucl Med. 2008;49:201-205.
75. Smith-Jones PM, Solit DB, Akhurst T, et al. Imaging the pharmacodynamics of HER2 degradation in response to Hsp90 inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:701-706.
76. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:793-796.