Computational approaches to assist in the evaluation of cancer treatment response

Imaging in Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 233-246

  Levy, Mia A ^a   Rubin, Daniel L ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer treatment response assessment; image annotation; image repository; imaging informatics; response criteria; treatment decision support

Indexed keywords

CANCER GROWTH; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DATA BASE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 79955124290     PISSN: 17555191     EISSN: 17555205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/iim.11.8     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Buyse M, Piedbois P: On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat. Med. 15, 2797-2812 (1996). (Pubitemid 27011058)
2. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Piedbois P: Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet 356, 373-378 (2000). (Pubitemid 30487493)
3. Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P et al.: Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur. J. Cancer 33, 2326-2332 (1997). (Pubitemid 28129171)
4. El-Maraghi RH, Eisenhauer EA: Review of Phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in Phase III. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1346-1354 (2008).
5. Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al.: Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 2505-2512 (2006). (Pubitemid 46630627)
6. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al.: Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 125-134 (2007). (Pubitemid 46089673)
7. Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, Nomikos D, Seymour L: Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 5928-5934 (2005). (Pubitemid 41170322)
8. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47, 207-214 (1981). (Pubitemid 11167383)
9. Tonkin K, Tritchler D, Tannock I: Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 3, 870-875 (1985). (Pubitemid 15062917)
10. Baar J, Tannock I: Analyzing the same data in two ways: a demonstration model to illustrate the reporting and misreporting of clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 7, 969-978 (1989).
11. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al.: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92, 205-216 (2000). (Pubitemid 30099779)
12. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al.: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
13. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B et al.: Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. NCI sponsored international working group. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 1244 (1999).
14. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al.: Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 579-586 (2007). (Pubitemid 350002966)
15. Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W et al.: Eligibility and response guidelines for Phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 3461-3467 (1999). (Pubitemid 29517916)
16. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I et al.: Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1148-1159 (2008).
17. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC, Cairncross JG: Response criteria for Phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 8, 1277-1280 (1990). (Pubitemid 20195640)
18. Choi H: Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncologist 13(Suppl. 2), 4-7 (2008).
19. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al.: Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 1753-1759 (2007). (Pubitemid 46797957)
20. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA et al.: We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 1760-1764 (2007). (Pubitemid 46797958)
21. Oxnard GR, Armato SG, Kindler HL: Modeling of mesothelioma growth demonstrates weaknesses of current response criteria. Lung Cancer 52, 141-148 (2006).
22. Plathow C, Klopp M, Thieke C et al.: Therapy response in malignant pleural mesothelioma-role of MRI using RECIST, modified RECIST and volumetric approaches in comparison with CT. Eur. Radiol. 18, 1635-1643 (2008).
23. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA: From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 50(Suppl. 1), 122S-150S (2009).
24. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L et al.: Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 290-299 (2009).
25. Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J et al.: Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 268-274 (2009).
26. US FDA: US FDA Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee Briefing Document for NDA 21-649 (Oblimersen Sodium).Genta Inc., NJ, USA (2004).
27. US FDA: FDA Briefing Document Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting NDA 21801 (Satraplatin).DHHS, MD, USA (2007).
28. US FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval Package for Application Number NDA 22-059 (Lapatinib Ditosylate).DHHS, MD, USA (2007).
29. Levy MA, Rubin DL: Tool support to enable evaluation of the clinical response to treatment. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 399-403 (2008).
30. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D et al.: Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 248-260 (2008).
31. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gönen M: A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 300-310 (2009).
32. Cagnon CH, Cody DD, McNitt-Gray MF, Seibert JA, Judy PF, Aberle DR: Description and implementation of a quality control program in an imaging-based clinical trial. Acad. Radiol. 13, 1431-1441 (2006).
33. FitzGerald TJ, Urie M, Ulin K et al.: Processes for quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 71, S76-S79 (2008). (Pubitemid 351491432)
34. Kamauu AW, Whipple JJ, DuVall SL, Siddiqui KM, Siegel EL, Avrin D: Informatics in radiology: IHE teaching file and clinical trial export integration profile: functional examples. Radiographics 28, 933-945 (2008).
35. Armato SG, Meyer CR, Mcnitt-Gray MF et al.: The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of change-analysis software. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 84, 448-456 (2008).
36. Marcus DS, Olsen TR, Ramaratnam M, Buckner RL: The Extensible Neuroimaging Archive Toolkit: an informatics platform for managing, exploring, and sharing neuroimaging data. Neuroinformatics 5, 11-34 (2007).
37. Keator DB, Grethe JS, Marcus D et al.: A national human neuroimaging collaboratory enabled by the Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN).IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 12, 162-172 (2008). (Pubitemid 351460485)
38. Langlotz CP: RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 26, 1595 (2006).
39. Hussein R, Engelmann U, Schroeter A, Meinzer HP: DICOM structured reporting: part 1. Overview and characteristics. Radiographics 24, 891-896 (2004). (Pubitemid 38703255)
40. Clunie DA: DICOM structured reporting and cancer clinical trials results. Cancer Inform. 4, 33-56 (2007).
41. Channin DS, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, Sepukar K, Rubin DL: The caBIG Annotation and Image Markup Project. J. Digit. Imaging 23, 217-225 (2010).
42. Rubin DL, Rodriguez C, Shah P, Beaulieu C: iPad: semantic annotation and markup of radiological images. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 626-630 (2008).
43. Napel SA, Beaulieu CF, Rodriguez C et al.: Automated retrieval of CT images of liver lesions on the basis of image similarity: method and preliminary results. Radiology 256, 243-252 (2010).
44. Wang F, Pan T, Sharma A, Saltz J: Managing and querying image annotation and markup in XML. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 7628, 3 (2010).
45. Levy MA, Garg A, Tam A, Garten Y, Rubin DL: LesionViewer: a tool for tracking cancer lesions over time. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 443-447 (2007).
46. Levy MA, O'Connor MJ, Rubin DL: Semantic reasoning with image annotations for tumor assessment. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 359-363 (2009).
47. Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J: Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl. Oncol. 2, 195-197 (2009).