Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology-multifactorial decision support systems

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 27-40

  Lambin, Philippe ^a   Van Stiphout, Ruud G P M ^a   Starmans, Maud H W ^a   Rios Velazquez, Emmanuel ^a   Nalbantov, Georgi ^a   Aerts, Hugo J W L ^b   Roelofs, Erik ^a   Van Elmpt, Wouter ^a   Boutros, Paul C ^c   Granone, Pierluigi ^d   Valentini, Vincenzo ^d   Begg, Adrian C ^d,e   De Ruysscher, Dirk ^a   Dekker, Andre ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH   (Canada)

^d FONDAZIONE POLICLINICO UNIVERSITARIO A GEMELLI IRCCS   (Italy)

^e NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL FEATURE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HUMAN; HYPOXIA; IMAGE GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION INJURY; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOSENSITIVITY; REVIEW;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; RADIATION ONCOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84871609385     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.196     Document Type: Review

References (224)

1. Vogelzang, N. J. et al. Clinical cancer advances 2011: annual report on progress against cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 88-109 (2012).
2. Fraass, B. A. & Moran, J. M. Quality, technology and outcomes: evolution and evaluation of new treatments and/or new technology. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 22, 3-10 (2012).
3. Abernethy, A. P. et al. Rapid-learning system for cancer care. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 4268-4274 (2010).
4. Maitland, M. L. & Schilsky, R. L. Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61, 365-381 (2011).
5. Gerlinger, M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 883-892 (2012).
6. Bachtiary, B. et al. Gene expression profiling in cervical cancer: an exploration of intratumor heterogeneity. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 5632-5640 (2006).
7. Boyd, C. A., Benarroch-Gampel, J., Sheffield, K. M., Cooksley, C. D. & Riall, T. S. 415 patients with adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas: a population-based analysis of prognosis and survival. J. Surg. Res. 174, 12-19 (2012).
8. Milosevic, M. F. et al. Interstitial fluid pressure in cervical carcinoma: within tumor heterogeneity, and relation to oxygen tension. Cancer 82, 2418-2426 (1998).
9. Curtis, C. et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 468, 346-352 (2012).
10. Suit, H., Skates, S., Taghian, A., Okunieff, P. & Efird, J. T. Clinical implications of heterogeneity of tumor response to radiation therapy. Radiother. Oncol. 25, 251-260 (1992).
11. Aerts, H. J. et al. Identification of residual metabolic-active areas within NSCLC tumours using a pre-radiotherapy FDG-PET-CT scan: a prospective validation. Lung Cancer 75, 73-76 (2012).
12. Aerts, H. J. et al. Identification of residual metabolic-active areas within individual NSCLC tumours using a pre-radiotherapy (18)Fluorodeoxyglucose- PET-CT scan. Radiother. Oncol. 91, 386-392 (2009).
13. Vickers, A. J. Prediction models: revolutionary in principle, but do they do more good than harm? J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2951-2952 (2011).
14. Bright, T. J. et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 157 29-43 (2012).
15. Clark, G. M. Prognostic factors versus predictive factors: examples from a clinical trial of erlotinib. Mol. Oncol. 1, 406-412 (2008).
16. Dancey, J. E. et al. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 1745-1755 (2010).
17. Peek, N., Arts, D. G., Bosman, R. J., van der Voort, P. H. & de Keizer, N. F. External validation of prognostic models for critically ill patients required substantial sample sizes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 491-501 (2007).
18. Vergouwe, Y., Steyerberg, E. W., Eijkemans, M. J. & Habbema, J. D. Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58, 475-483 (2005).
19. Steyerberg, E. W. et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21, 128-138 (2010).
20. Aittokallio, T. Dealing with missing values in large-scale studies: microarray data imputation and beyond. Brief. Bioinform. 11, 253-264 (2010).
21. Ludbrook, J. Outlying observations and missing values: how should they be handled? Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 35, 670-678 (2008).
22. Jayalakshmi, T. & Santhakumaran, A. Statistical normalization and back propagation for classification. Int. J. Comput. Theory Eng. 3, 89-93 (2011).
23. Huan, L. & Motoda, H. Feature Selection for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1998).
24. Harrell, F. E. Regression Modeling Strategies (Springer, New York, 2001).
25. Bishop, C. M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, New York, 2007).
26. Lee, S. M. & Abbott, P. A. Bayesian networks for knowledge discovery in large datasets: basics for nurse researchers. J. Biomed. Inform. 36, 389-399 (2003).
27. Cruz, J. A. & Wishart, D. S. Applications of machine learning in cancer prediction and prognosis. Cancer Inform. 2, 59-77 (2007).
28. Putter, H., Fiocco, M. & Geskus, R. B. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat. Med. 26, 2389-2430 (2007).
29. Moons, K. G. et al. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart 98, 691-698 (2012).
30. Dehing-Oberije, C. et al. Development, external validation and clinical usefulness of a practical prediction model for radiation-induced dysphagia in lung cancer patients. Radiother. Oncol. 97, 455-461 (2010).
31. Specht, M. C., Kattan, M. W., Gonen, M., Fey, J. & Van Zee, K. J. Predicting nonsentinel node status after positive sentinel lymph biopsy for breast cancer: clinicians versus nomogram. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 12, 654-659 (2005).
32. Dehing-Oberije, C. et al. Tumor volume combined with number of positive lymph node stations is a more important prognostic factor than TNM stage for survival of non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 70, 1039-1044 (2008).
33. Vickers, A. J., Kramer, B. S. & Baker, S. G. Selecting patients for randomized trials: a systematic approach based on risk group. Trials 7, 30 (2006).
34. Baggerly, K. A. & Coombes, K. R. What information should be required to support clinical "omics" publications? Clin. Chem. 57, 688-690 (2011).
35. Klopp, A. H. & Eifel, P. J. Biological predictors of cervical cancer response to radiation therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 22, 143-150 (2012).
36. Kristiansen, G. Diagnostic and prognostic molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer. Histopathology 60, 125-141 (2012).
37. Dehing-Oberije, C. et al. Development and external validation of prognostic model for 2-year survival of non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 74, 355-362 (2009).
38. Ang, C. S., Phung, J. & Nice, E. C. The discovery and validation of colorectal cancer biomarkers. Biomed. Chromatogr. 25, 82-99 (2011).
39. Schmidt, M. E. & Steindorf, K. Statistical methods for the validation of questionnaires-discrepancy between theory and practice. Methods Inf. Med. 45, 409-413 (2006).
40. Garrido-Laguna, I. et al. Validation of the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score in patients treated in the Phase I Clinical Trials Program at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer 118, 1422-1428 (2012).
41. Shrier, I. et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am. J. Epidemiol. 166, 1203-1209 (2007).
42. Tzoulaki, I., Siontis, K. C. & Ioannidis, J. P. Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study. BMJ 343, d6829 (2011).
43. Trotti, A., Colevas, A. D., Setser, A. & Basch, E. Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5121-5127 (2007).
44. Trotti, A. et al. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 13, 176-181 (2003).
45. Golder, S., Loke, Y. K. & Bland, M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med. 8, e1001026 (2011).
46. Steg, P. G. et al. External validity of clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. Arch. Intern. Med. 167, 68-73 (2007).
47. Little, J. et al. Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 150, 206-215 (2009).
48. von Elm, E. et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370, 1453-1457 (2007).
49. Dawson, L. A. & Sharpe, M. B. Image-guided radiotherapy: rationale, benefits, and limitations. Lancet Oncol. 7, 848-858 (2006).
50. Bentzen, S. M. et al. Quantitative analyses of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 76 (Suppl. 3), 3-9 (2010).
51. Verellen, D. et al. Innovations in image-guided radiotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 949-960 (2007).
52. Holthusen, H. Erfahrungen über die Verträglichkeitsgrenze für Röntgenstrahlen und deren nutzanwendung zur verhütung von schäden [German]. Strahlentherapie 57, 254-269 (1936).
53. Valentini, V. et al. Nomograms for predicting local recurrence, distant metastases, and overall survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer on the basis of European randomized clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3163-3172 (2011).
54. Belderbos, J. et al. Randomised trial of sequential versus concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (EORTC 08972-22973). Eur. J. Cancer 43, 114-121 (2007).
55. Lambin, P. et al. The ESTRO Breur Lecture 2009. From population to voxel-based radiotherapy: exploiting intra-tumour and intra-organ heterogeneity for advanced treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 96, 145-152 (2010).
56. Graham, M. V. et al. Clinical dose-volume histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 45, 323-329 (1999).
57. Emami, B. et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 21, 109-122 (1991).
58. Ottolenghi, A., Smyth, V. & Trott, K. R. The risks to healthy tissues from the use of existing and emerging techniques for radiation therapy. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 143, 533-535 (2011).
59. Beetz, I. et al. NTCP models for patient-rated xerostomia and sticky saliva after treatment with intensity modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: the role of dosimetric and clinical factors. Radiother. Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2012.03.004.
60. van der Schaaf, A. et al. Multivariate modeling of complications with data driven variable selection: guarding against overfitting and effects of data set size. Radiother. Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.006.
61. Xu, C.-J., van der Schaaf, A., van't Veld, A. A., Langendijk, J. A. & Schilstra, C. Statistical validation of normal tissue complication probability models. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 84, e123-e129 (2012).
62. Nijsten, S. M., Mijnheer, B. J., Dekker, A. L., Lambin, P. & Minken, A. W. Routine individualised patient dosimetry using electronic portal imaging devices. Radiother. Oncol. 83, 65-75 (2007).
63. van Elmpt, W., Petit, S., De Ruysscher, D., Lambin, P. & Dekker, A. 3D dose delivery verification using repeated cone-beam imaging and EPID dosimetry for stereotactic body radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 94, 188-194 (2010).
64. van Elmpt, W. et al. 3D in vivo dosimetry using megavoltage cone-beam CT and EPID dosimetry. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 73, 1580-1587 (2009).
65. Rodrigues, G., Lock, M., D'Souza, D., Yu, E. & Van Dyk, J. Prediction of radiation pneumonitis by dose-volume histogram parameters in lung cancer-a systematic review. Radiother. Oncol. 71, 127-138 (2004).
66. Werner-Wasik, M., Yorke, E., Deasy, J., Nam, J. & Marks, L. B. Radiation dose-volume effects in the esophagus. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 76 (Suppl. 3), S86-S93 (2010).
67. Saunders, M., Rojas, A. M. & Dische, S. CHART revisited: a conservative approach for advanced head and neck cancer. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.) 20, 127-133 (2008).
68. Turner, N. et al. Integrative molecular profiling of triple negative breast cancers identifies amplicon drivers and potential therapeutic targets. Oncogene 29, 2013-2023 (2010).
69. Begg, A. C. et al. The value of pretreatment cell kinetic parameters as predictors for radiotherapy outcome in head and neck cancer: a multicenter analysis. Radiother. Oncol. 50, 13-23 (1999).
70. Taguchi, F. et al. Mass spectrometry to classify non-small-cell lung cancer patients for clinical outcome after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a multicohort cross-institutional study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 838-846 (2007).
71. Hessel, F. et al. Impact of increased cell loss on the repopulation rate during fractionated irradiation in human FaDu squamous cell carcinoma growing in nude mice. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 79, 479-486 (2003).
72. Baumann, M., Krause, M. & Hill, R. Exploring the role of cancer stem cells in radioresistance. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 545-554 (2008).
73. Ben-Josef, E. et al. Impact of overall treatment time on survival and local control in patients with anal cancer: a pooled data analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials 87-04 and 98-11. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 5061-5066 (2010).
74. Thames, H. D. et al. The role of overall treatment time in the outcome of radiotherapy of prostate cancer: an analysis of biochemical failure in 4839 men treated between 1987 and 1995. Radiother. Oncol. 96, 6-12 (2010).
75. Fass, L. Imaging and cancer: A review. Mol. Oncol. 2, 115-152 (2008).
76. Torigian, D. A., Huang, S. S., Houseni, M. & Alavi, A. Functional imaging of cancer with emphasis on molecular techniques. CA Cancer J. Clin. 57, 206-224 (2007).
77. Eadie, L. H., Taylor, P. & Gibson, A. P. A systematic review of computer-assisted diagnosis in diagnostic cancer imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 81, e70-e76 (2012).
78. Gillies, R. J., Anderson, A. R., Gatenby, R. A. & Morse, D. L. The biology underlying molecular imaging in oncology: from genome to anatome and back again. Clin. Radiol. 65, 517-521 (2010).
79. Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 441-446 (2012).
80. Velazquez, E. R., Aerts, H. J., Oberije, C., De Ruysscher, D. & Lambin, P. Prediction of residual metabolic activity after treatment in NSCLC patients. Acta Oncol. 49, 1033-1039 (2010).
81. Cangir, A. K. et al. Prognostic value of tumor size in non-small cell lung cancer larger than five centimeters in diameter. Lung Cancer 46, 325-331 (2004).
82. Lam, J. S. et al. Prognostic relevance of tumour size in T3a renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre experience. Eur. Urol. 52, 155-162 (2007).
83. Pitson, G. et al. Tumor size and oxygenation are independent predictors of nodal diseases in patients with cervix cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51, 699-703 (2001).
84. Thomas, F. et al. Radical radiotherapy alone in non-operable breast cancer: The major impact of tumor size and histological grade on prognosis. Radiother. Oncol. 13, 267-276 (1988).
85. Steenbakkers, R. J. et al. Observer variation in target volume delineation of lung cancer related to radiation oncologist-computer interaction: a 'Big Brother' evaluation. Radiother. Oncol. 77, 182-190 (2005).
86. Greco, C., Rosenzweig, K., Cascini, G. L. & Tamburrini, O. Current status of PET/CT for tumour volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 57, 125-134 (2007).
87. Caldwell, C. B. et al. Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: the impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51, 923-931 (2001).
88. Bowden, P. et al. Measurement of lung tumor volumes using three-dimensional computer planning software. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 53, 566-573 (2002).
89. Nishino, M. et al. CT tumor volume measurement in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: performance characteristics of an emerging clinical tool. Acad. Radiol. 18, 54-62 (2011).
90. Marcus, C. D. et al. Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: current standards and perspectives. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 72, 217-238 (2009).
91. Schwartz, L. H., Mazumdar, M., Brown, W., Smith, A. & Panicek, D. M. Variability in response assessment in solid tumors: effect of number of lesions chosen for measurement. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 4318-4323 (2003).
92. Erasmus, J. J. et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 2574-2582 (2003).
93. Therasse, P. Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur. J. Cancer 38, 1817-1823 (2002).
94. Nehmeh, S. A. & Erdi, Y. E. Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a review. Semin. Nucl. Med. 38, 167-176 (2008).
95. Sonke, J. J. & Belderbos, J. Adaptive radiotherapy for lung cancer. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 20, 94-106 (2010).
96. van Baardwijk, A. et al. PET-CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 68, 771-778 (2007).
97. Wu, K. et al. PET CT thresholds for radiotherapy target definition in non-small-cell lung cancer: how close are we to the pathologic findings? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 77, 699-706 (2010).
98. Wanet, M. et al. Gradient-based delineation of the primary GTV on FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer: a comparison with threshold-based approaches, CT and surgical specimens. Radiother. Oncol. 98, 117-125 (2011).
99. Strassmann, G. et al. Atlas-based semiautomatic target volume definition (CTV) for head-and-neck tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 78, 1270-1276 (2010).
100. Nestle, U. et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 46, 1342-1348 (2005).
101. Daisne, J. F. et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 233, 93-100 (2004).
102. van Loon, J. et al. Therapeutic implications of molecular imaging with PET in the combined modality treatment of lung cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 37, 331-343 (2011).
103. Wood, K. A., Hoskin, P. J. & Saunders, M. I. Positron emission tomography in oncology: a review. Clin. Oncol. 19, 237-255 (2007).
104. O'Connor, J. P. et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol. 9, 766-776 (2008).
105. van Baardwijk, A. et al. Time trends in the maximal uptake of FDG on PET scan during thoracic radiotherapy. A prospective study in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Radiother. Oncol. 82, 145-152 (2007).
106. Rodney, J. H. PET for therapeutic response monitoring in oncology. PET Clinics 3, 89-99 (2008).
107. Chung, H. H. et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by FDG-PET/CT in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 120, 270-274 (2011).
108. Borst, G. R. et al. Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 41, 1533-1541 (2005).
109. Mac Manus, M. P. et al. Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer 49, 95-108 (2005).
110. Hoekstra, C. J. et al. Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 8362-8370 (2005).
111. Soto, D. E., Kessler, M. L., Piert, M. & Eisbruch, A. Correlation between pretreatment FDG-PET biological target volume and anatomical location of failure after radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Radiother. Oncol. 89, 13-18 (2008).
112. Lambrecht, M. et al. The use of FDG-PET/CT and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for response prediction before, during and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 49, 956-963 (2010).
113. Janssen, M. H. M. et al. Evaluation of early metabolic responses in rectal cancer during combined radiochemotherapy or radiotherapy alone: Sequential FDG-PET-CT findings. Radiother. Oncol. 94, 151-155 (2010).
114. Ceulemans, G. et al. Can 18-FDG-PET during radiotherapy replace post-therapy scanning for detection/demonstration of tumor response in head-and-neck cancer? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 81, 938-942 (2011).
115. van Loon, J. et al. Early CT and FDG-metabolic tumour volume changes show a significant correlation with survival in stage I-III small cell lung cancer: a hypothesis generating study. Radiother. Oncol. 99, 172-175 (2011).
116. Bussink, J., Kaanders, J. H., van der Graaf, W. T. & Oyen, W. J. PET-CT for radiotherapy treatment planning and response monitoring in solid tumors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 233-242 (2011).
117. Boellaard, R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J. Nucl. Med. 52 (Suppl. 2), 93-100 (2011).
118. Boellaard, R. et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 35, 2320-2333 (2008).
119. Boellaard, R. et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 37, 181-200 (2010).
120. Bayouth, J. E. et al. Image-based biomarkers in clinical practice. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 21, 157-166 (2011).
121. Harry, V. N., Semple, S. I., Parkin, D. E. & Gilbert, F. J. Use of new imaging techniques to predict tumour response to therapy. Lancet Oncol. 11, 92-102 (2010).
122. Heijmen, L. et al. Tumour response prediction by diffusion-weighted MR imaging: ready for clinical use? Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 83, 194-207 (2012).
123. Lambrecht, M. et al. The prognostic value of pretherapeutic diffusion-weighted MRI in oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with (chemo-)radiotherapy. Cancer Imaging 11, S112-S113 (2011).
124. Vandecaveye, V. et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging early after chemoradiotherapy to monitor treatment response in head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 82, 1098-1107 (2012).
125. Kim, S. Y. et al. Malignant hepatic tumors: short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficients with breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 255, 815-823 (2010).
126. Sinkus, R., Van Beers, B. E., Vilgrain, V., Desouza, N. & Waterton, J. C. Apparent diffusion coefficient from magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in oncology drug development. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 425-431 (2012).
127. Kierkels, R. G. et al. Comparison between perfusion computed tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 77, 400-408 (2010).
128. Shukla-Dave, A. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients with nodal metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 82, 1837-1844 (2012).
129. Yaromina, A. et al. Co-localisation of hypoxia and perfusion markers with parameters of glucose metabolism in human squamous cell carcinoma (hSCC) xenografts. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 85, 972-980 (2009).
130. Mörchel, P. et al. Correlating quantitative MR measurements of standardized tumor lines with histological parameters and tumor control dose. Radiother. Oncol. 96, 123-130 (2010).
131. Quennet, V. et al. Tumor lactate content predicts for response to fractionated irradiation of human squamous cell carcinomas in nude mice. Radiother. Oncol. 81, 130-135 (2006).
132. Kim, Y. I. et al. Multiphase contrast-enhanced CT imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma correlation with immunohistochemical angiogenic activities. Acad. Radiol. 14, 1084-1091 (2007).
133. Miles, K. A. Perfusion CT for the assessment of tumour vascularity: which protocol? Br. J. Radiol. 76, S36-S42 (2003).
134. Miles, K. A. Molecular imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Clin. Radiol. 65, 549-556 (2010).
135. Petralia, G. et al. CT perfusion in oncology: how to do it. Cancer Imaging 10, 8-19 (2010).
136. Asselin, M. C., O'Connor, J. P., Boellaard, R., Thacker, N. A. & Jackson, A. Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 447-455 (2012).
137. Eary, J. F., O'Sullivan, F., O'Sullivan, J. & Conrad, E. U. Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J. Nucl. Med. 49, 1973-1979 (2008).
138. Tixier, F. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 52, 369-378 (2011).
139. Diehn, M. et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5213-5218 (2008).
140. Kuo, M. D., Gollub, J., Sirlin, C. B., Ooi, C. & Chen, X. Radiogenomic analysis to identify imaging phenotypes associated with drug response gene expression programs in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 18, 821-831 (2007).
141. Segal, E. et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 675-680 (2007).
142. Rutman, A. M. & Kuo, M. D. Radiogenomics: creating a link between molecular diagnostics and diagnostic imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 70, 232-241 (2009).
143. Lindegaard, J. C., Overgaard, J., Bentzen, S. M. & Pedersen, D. Is there a radiobiologic basis for improving the treatment of advanced stage cervical cancer? J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 105-112 (1996).
144. Slonina, D. & Gasińska, A. Intrinsic radiosensitivity of healthy donors and cancer patients as determined by the lymphocyte micronucleus assay. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 72, 693-701 (1997).
145. Fertil, B. & Malaise, E. P. Intrinsic radiosensitivity of human cell lines is correlated with radioresponsiveness of human tumors: analysis of 101 published survival curves. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11, 1699-1707 (1985).
146. West, C. M., Davidson, S. E., Roberts, S. A. & Hunter, R. D. The independence of intrinsic radiosensitivity as a prognostic factor for patient response to radiotherapy of carcinoma of the cervix. Br. J. Cancer 76, 1184-1190 (1997).
147. Björk-Eriksson, T., West, C., Karlsson, E. & Mercke, C. Tumor radiosensitivity (SF2) is a prognostic factor for local control in head and neck cancers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 46, 13-19 (2000).
148. Bartelink, H. et al. Towards prediction and modulation of treatment response. Radiother. Oncol. 50, 1-11 (1999).
149. Begg, A. C. Predicting recurrence after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 22, 108-118 (2012).
150. Menegakis, A. et al. Prediction of clonogenic cell survival curves based on the number of residual DNA double strand breaks measured by γ-H2AX staining. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 85, 1032-1041 (2009).
151. Olive, P. L. & Banáth, J. P. Phosphorylation of histone H2AX as a measure of radiosensitivity. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 58, 331-335 (2004).
152. Höckel, M. et al. Association between tumor hypoxia and malignant progression in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res. 56, 4509-4515 (1996).
153. Vaupel, P. & Mayer, A. Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 26, 225-239 (2007).
154. Chouaib, S. et al. Hypoxia promotes tumor growth in linking angiogenesis to immune escape. Front. Immunol. 3, 21 (2012).
155. Kaanders, J. H. et al. Pimonidazole binding and tumor vascularity predict for treatment outcome in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 7066-7074 (2002).
156. Nordsmark, M. et al. The prognostic value of pimonidazole and tumour pO2 in human cervix carcinomas after radiation therapy: a prospective international multi-center study. Radiother. Oncol. 80, 123-131 (2006).
157. Rouschop, K. M. A. et al. The unfolded protein response protects human tumor cells during hypoxia through regulation of the autophagy genes MAP1LC3B and ATG5. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 127-141 (2010).
158. Krause, B. J., Beck, R., Souvatzoglou, M. & Piert, M. PET and PET/CT studies of tumor tissue oxygenation. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 50, 28-43 (2006).
159. Dubois, L. J. et al. Preclinical evaluation and validation of [18F]HX4, a promising hypoxia marker for PET imaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14620-14625 (2011).
160. van Loon, J. et al. Selective nodal irradiation on basis of (18)FDG-PET scans in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 77, 329-336 (2010).
161. West, C. M., Cooper, R. A., Loncaster, J. A., Wilks, D. P. & Bromley, M. Tumor vascularity: a histological measure of angiogenesis and hypoxia. Cancer Res. 61, 2907-2910 (2001).
162. Maciejewski, B., Withers, H. R., Taylor, J. M. & Hliniak, A. Dose fractionation and regeneration in radiotherapy for cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx: tumor dose-response and repopulation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 16, 831-843 (1989).
163. Suzuki, Y. et al. Prognostic impact of mitotic index of proliferating cell populations in cervical cancer patients treated with carbon ion beam. Cancer 115, 1875-1882 (2009).
164. Turesson, I., Nyman, J., Holmberg, E. & Odén, A. Prognostic factors for acute and late skin reactions in radiotherapy patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 36, 1065-1075 (1996).
165. Johansen, J., Bentzen, S. M., Overgaard, J. & Overgaard, M. Evidence for a positive correlation between in vitro radiosensitivity of normal human skin fibroblasts and the occurrence of subcutaneous fibrosis after radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 66, 407-412 (1994).
166. West, C. M. et al. Lymphocyte radiosensitivity is a significant prognostic factor for morbidity in carcinoma of the cervix. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51, 10-15 (2001).
167. Peacock, J. et al. Cellular radiosensitivity and complication risk after curative radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 55, 173-178 (2000).
168. Russell, N. S. et al. Low predictive value of intrinsic fibroblast radiosensitivity for fibrosis development following radiotherapy for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 73, 661-670 (1998).
169. Russell, N. S., Arlett, C. F., Bartelink, H. & Begg, A. C. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization to determine the relationship between chromosome aberrations and cell survival in eight human fibroblast strains. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 68, 185-196 (1995).
170. Kiltie, A. E. et al. A correlation between residual radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks in cultured fibroblasts and late radiotherapy reactions in breast cancer patients. Radiother. Oncol. 51, 55-65 (1999).
171. Dileto, C. L. & Travis, E. L. Fibroblast radiosensitivity in vitro and lung fibrosis in vivo: comparison between a fibrosis-prone and fibrosis-resistant mouse strain. Radiat. Res. 146, 61-67 (1996).
172. Azria, D. et al. Concurrent or sequential adjuvant letrozole and radiotherapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer (CO-HO-RT): a phase 2 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 11, 258-265 (2010).
173. Bentzen, S. M. Preventing or reducing late side effects of radiation therapy: radiobiology meets molecular pathology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 702-713 (2006).
174. Rodemann, H. P. & Bamberg, M. Cellular basis of radiation-induced fibrosis. Radiother. Oncol. 35, 83-90 (1995).
175. Andreassen, C. N., Alsner, J., Overgaard, M., Sørensen, F. B. & Overgaard, J. Risk of radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis in relation to single nucleotide polymorphisms in TGFB1, SOD2, XRCC1, XRCC3, APEX and ATM-a study based on DNA from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue samples. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 82, 577-586 (2006).
176. Chang-Claude, J. et al. Association between polymorphisms in the DNA repair genes, XRCC1, APE1, and XPD and acute side effects of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 4802-4809 (2005).
177. Barnett, G. C. et al. Independent validation of genes and polymorphisms reported to be associated with radiation toxicity: a prospective analysis study. Lancet Oncol. 13, 65-77 (2012).
178. Cammann, H., Jung, K., Meyer, H. A. & Stephan, C. Avoiding pitfalls
179. Iasonos, A., Schrag, D., Raj, G. V. & Panageas, K. S. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1364-1370 (2008).
180. Dehing-Oberije, C. et al. Development and validation of a prognostic model using blood biomarker information for prediction of survival of non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with combined chemotherapy and radiation or radiotherapy alone (NCT00181519, NCT00573040, and NCT00572325). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 81, 360-368 (2011).
181. Egelmeer, A. G. et al. Development and validation of a nomogram for prediction of survival and local control in laryngeal carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy alone: a cohort study based on 994 patients. Radiother. Oncol. 100, 108-115 (2011).
182. van Stiphout, R. G. et al. Development and external validation of a predictive model for pathological complete response of rectal cancer patients including sequential PET-CT imaging. Radiother. Oncol. 98, 126-133 (2011).
183. Marko, N. F., Xu, Z., Gao, T., Kattan, M. W. & Weil, R. J. Predicting survival in women with breast cancer and brain metastasis: a nomogram outperforms current survival prediction models. Cancer 118, 3749-3757 (2011).
184. Rudloff, U. et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 3762-3769 (2010).
185. Adjuvant! Inc. Adjuvant! Online [online], http://www.adjuvantonline.com (2011).
186. Hajage, D. et al. External validation of Adjuvant! Online breast cancer prognosis tool. Prioritising recommendations for improvement. PLoS ONE 6, e27446 (2011).
187. Kuo, Y. L., Chen, D. R. & Chang, T. W. Accuracy validation of Adjuvant! Online in Taiwanese breast cancer patients-a 10-year analysis. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 12, 108 (2012).
188. MAASTRO Clinic. Cancer Prediction Models [online], http://www. predictcancer.org (2012).
189. Ginsburg, G. S., Staples, J. & Abernethy, A. P. Academic medical centers: ripe for rapid-learning personalized health care. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 101cm127 (2011).
190. Deasy, J. O. et al. Improving normal tissue complication probability models: the need to adopt a "data-pooling" culture. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 76 (Suppl. 3), S151-S154 (2010).
191. Roelofs, E. et al. Design of and technical challenges involved in a framework for multicentric radiotherapy treatment planning studies. Radiother. Oncol. 97, 567-571 (2010).
192. Euregional Computer Assisted Theragnostics (EuroCAT) project [online], http://www.eurocat.info (2012).
193. De Ruysscher, D. et al. First report on the patient database for the identification of the genetic pathways involved in patients over-reacting to radiotherapy: GENEPI-II. Radiother. Oncol. 97, 36-39 (2010).
194. West, C. et al. Establishment of a radiogenomics consortium. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 76, 1295-1296 (2010).
195. Kessel, K. A. et al. Connection of European particle therapy centers and generation of a common particle database system within the European ULICE-framework. Radiat. Oncol. 7, 115 (2012).
196. Meyerson, M., Gabriel, S. & Getz, G. Advances in understanding cancer genomes through second-generation sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 685-696 (2010).
197. Wulfkuhle, J. D., Liotta, L. A. & Petricoin, E. F. Proteomic applications for the early detection of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 267-275 (2003).
198. Pinkel, D. & Albertson, D. G. Array comparative genomic hybridization and its applications in cancer. Nat. Genet. 37 (Suppl.), S11-S17 (2005).
199. Quackenbush, J. Microarray analysis and tumor classification. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 2463-2472 (2006).
200. Lu, Y. et al. Kinome siRNA-phosphoproteomic screen identifies networks regulating AKT signaling. Oncogene 30, 4567-4577 (2011).
201. Gupta, P. B. et al. Identification of selective inhibitors of cancer stem cells by high-throughput screening. Cell 138, 645-659 (2009).
202. Director's Challenge Consortium for the Molecular Classification of Lung Adenocarcinoma. Gene expression-based survival prediction in lung adenocarcinoma: a multi-site, blinded validation study. Nat. Med. 14, 822-827 (2008).
203. Yanaihara, N. et al. Unique microRNA molecular profiles in lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Cancer Cell 9, 189-198 (2006).
204. Zuber, J. et al. RNAi screen identifies Brd4 as a therapeutic target in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 478, 524-528 (2011).
205. Best, T. et al. Variants at 6q21 implicate PRDM1 in the etiology of therapy-induced second malignancies after Hodgkin's lymphoma. Nat. Med. 17, 941-943 (2011).
206. Kerns, S. L. et al. Genome-wide association study to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the development of erectile dysfunction in African-American men after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 78, 1292-1300 (2010).
207. de Jong, M. C. et al. CD44 expression predicts local recurrence after radiotherapy in larynx cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 5329-5338 (2010).
208. Kitahara, O., Katagiri, T., Tsunoda, T., Harima, Y. & Nakamura, Y. Classification of sensitivity or resistance of cervical cancers to ionizing radiation according to expression profiles of 62 genes selected by cDNA microarray analysis. Neoplasia 4, 295-303 (2002).
209. Torres-Roca, J. F. et al. Prediction of radiation sensitivity using a gene expression classifier. Cancer Res. 65, 7169-7176 (2005).
210. Wong, Y. F. et al. Gene expression pattern associated with radiotherapy sensitivity in cervical cancer. Cancer J. 12, 189-193 (2006).
211. Yang, S. et al. Identification of prognostic biomarkers for response to radiotherapy by DNA microarray in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Int. J. Oncol. 40, 1590-1600 (2012).
212. Starmans, M. H. et al. The prognostic value of temporal in vitro and in vivo derived hypoxia gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 102, 436-443 (2012).
213. Winter, S. C. et al. Relation of a hypoxia metagene derived from head and neck cancer to prognosis of multiple cancers. Cancer Res. 67, 3441-3449 (2007).
214. Starmans, M. H. et al. Robust prognostic value of a knowledge-based proliferation signature across large patient microarray studies spanning different cancer types. Br. J. Cancer 99, 1884-1890 (2008).
215. Koboldt, D. C., Ding, L., Mardis, E. R. & Wilson, R. K. Challenges of sequencing human genomes. Brief. Bioinform. 11, 484-498 (2010).
216. Dupuy, A. & Simon, R. M. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 147-157 (2007).
217. Ein-Dor, L., Zuk, O. & Domany, E. Thousands of samples are needed to generate a robust gene list for predicting outcome in cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5923-5928 (2006).
218. Teo, Y. Y. Common statistical issues in genome-wide association studies: a review on power, data quality control, genotype calling and population structure. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 19, 133-143 (2008).
219. Kitano, H. Systems biology: a brief overview. Science 295, 1662-1664 (2002).
220. International Cancer Genome Consortium. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464, 993-998 (2010).
221. van Elmpt, W., Ollers, M., Dingemans, A. M., Lambin, P. & De Ruysscher, D. Response assessment using 18F-FDG PET early in the course of radiotherapy correlates with survival in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 53, 1514-1520 (2012).
222. Mayr, N. A. et al. Characterizing tumor heterogeneity with functional imaging and quantifying high-risk tumor volume for early prediction of treatment outcome: cervical cancer as a model. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83, 972-979 (2012).
223. European Commission. Digital Agenda for Europe [online], http://ec.europa.eu/information-society/digital-agenda/index-en.htm (2012).
224. European Commission Information Society. ICT for better healthcare in Europe [online], http://ec.europa.eu/information-society/activities/health/ index-en.htm (2012).