A radiologist's guide to treatment response criteria in oncologic imaging: Functional, molecular, and disease-specific imaging biomarkers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 201, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 246-256

  Rezai, Pedram ^a   Pisaneschi, Mark J ^a   Feng, Chun ^a   Yaghmai, Vahid ^b  

^a Jr Hospital of Cook County   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disease specific imaging biomarker; Functional imaging biomarker; Molecular imaging biomarker

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITOR; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR KINASE INHIBITOR; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IODINATED POPPYSEED OIL; PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITOR; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CHOI CRITERIA FOR TREATMENT RESPONSE EVALUATION OF GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CYTOSTASIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DISEASE MARKER; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TARGETING; EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF THE LIVER; EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR RESEARCH AND TREATMENT OF CANCER; FUNCTIONAL IMAGING; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; GLIOMA; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP CRITERIA; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; ONCOLOGIC IMAGING; PET RESPONSE CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; REVISED ASSESSMENT IN NEURO ONCOLOGY; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CYTOSTATIC AGENTS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84883679269     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9878     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Contractor KB, Aboagye EO. Monitoring predominantly cytostatic treatment response with 18FFDG PET. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (SUPPL. 1):97S-105S
2. Pasetto LM, Bortolami A, Falci C, Sinigaglia G, Monfardini S. Recent progress in target therapy in colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 2006; 26:3973-3981
3. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1673-1684
4. Gwyther SJ, Schwartz LH. How to assess anti-tumour efficacy by imaging techniques. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44:39-45
5. Van Beers BE, Vilgrain V. Biomarkers in abdominal imaging. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34:663-667
6. Curran SD, Muellner AU, Schwartz LH. Imaging response assessment in oncology. Cancer Imaging 2006; 6:S126-S130
7. Kwock L, Smith JK, Castillo M, et al. Clinical role of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in oncology: Brain, breast, and prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7:859-868
8. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: Review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35:1773-1782
9. Mankoff DA, Shields AF, Krohn KA. PET imaging of cellular proliferation. Radiol Clin North Am 2005; 43:153-167
10. Nanni C, Castellucci P, Farsad M, Rubello D, Fanti S. 11C/18F-choline PET or 11C/18F-Acetate PET in prostate cancer: May a choice be recommended? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1704-1705
11. Toretsky J, Levenson A, Weinberg IN, Tait JF, Uren A, Mease RC. Preparation of F-18 labeled annexin V: A potential PET radiopharmaceutical for imaging cell death. Nucl Med Biol 2004; 31:747-752
12. de Bazelaire C, Alsop DC, George D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-measured blood flow change after antiangiogenic therapy with PTK787/ZK 222584 correlates with clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:5548-5554
13. Padhani AR, Krohn KA, Lewis JS, Alber M. Imaging oxygenation of human tumours. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:861-872
14. Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: Correlation of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy-initial experience. Radiology 2005; 236:545-553
15. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: A quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR 2004; 183:1619-1628
16. Albanell J, Gascon P. Small molecules with EGFR-TK inhibitor activity. Curr Drug Targets 2005; 6:259-274
17. Goshen E, Davidson T, Zwas ST, Aderka D. PET/CT in the evaluation of response to treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer with beva-cizumab and irinotecan. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2006; 5:37-43
18. Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Shiba E, Noguchi S. Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2-Deoxy-2-fluoro- D-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004; 130:273-278
19. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, et al. FDG PET for evaluating the change of glucose metabolism in prostate cancer after androgen ablation. Nucl Med Commun 2001; 22:963-969
20. Lucignani G. PET-MRI synergy in molecular, functional and anatomical cancer imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:1550-1553
21. Van den Abbeele AD. The lessons of GIST-PET and PET/CT: A new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist 2008; 13(suppl 2):8-13
22. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012; 53:1041-1047
23. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 2012; 53:4-11
24. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. JNucl Med 2009; 50(SUPPL. 1):122S-150S
25. Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus V, Cucu C, Bouche O, Lucas L, Hoeffel C. Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: Current standards and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008; 72:217-238
26. Mueller-Lisse UG, Scherr MK. Proton MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63:351-360
27. Waldman AD, Jackson A, Price SJ, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in neuro-oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009; 6:445-454
28. Murphy PS, Viviers L, Abson C, et al. Monitoring temozolomide treatment of low-grade glioma with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:781-786
29. Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Bottomley PA, Bhujwalla Z, Bluemke DA. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of human breast cancer: A preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19:68-75
30. Haddadin IS, McIntosh A, Meisamy S, et al. Metabolite quantification and high-field MRS in breast cancer. NMR Biomed 2009; 22:65-76
31. Gass A, Niendorf T, Hirsch JG. Acute and chronic changes of the apparent diffusion coefficient in neurological disorders: Biophysical mechanisms and possible underlying histopathology. J Neurol Sci 2001; 186(SUPPL. 1):S15-S23
32. Ross BD, Moffat BA, Lawrence TS, et al. Evaluation of cancer therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Mol Cancer Ther 2003; 2:581-587
33. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: Applications and challenges in oncology. AJR 2007; 188:1622-1635
34. Lee KC, Sud S, Meyer CR, et al. An imaging biomarker of early treatment response in prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bone. Cancer Res 2007; 67:3524-3528
35. Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Meyer CR, et al. The functional diffusion map: An imaging biomarker for the early prediction of cancer treatment outcome. Neoplasia 2006; 8:259-267
36. Yanagihara TK, Kennedy B, Surapaneni K, Bruce JN. Statistical power in quantitative diffusion MRI of tumor response: Strategies for future studies. Acad Radiol 2012; 19:326-330
37. Murukesh N, Dive C, Jayson GC. Biomarkers of angiogenesis and their role in the development of VEGF inhibitors. Br J Cancer 2010; 102:8-18
38. Hayes C, Padhani AR, Leach MO. Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed 2002; 15:154-163
39. Miles KA, Griffiths MR. Perfusion CT: A worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 2003; 76:220-231
40. Goh V, Shastry M, Engledow A, et al. Integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT and perfusion CT of primary colorectal cancer: Effect of inter- and intraobserver agreement on metabolic-vascular parameters. AJR 2012; 199:1003-1009
41. Messiou C, Orton M, Ang JE, et al. Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity. Radiology 2012; 265:426-436
42. Padhani AR. Functional MRI for anticancer therapy assessment. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:2116-2127
43. Choi D, Lim HK, Kim SH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with percutaneous radio-frequency ablation: Usefulness of power Doppler US with a microbubble contrast agent in evaluating therapeutic response-preliminary Results. Radiology 2000; 217:558-563
44. Nishida M, Koito K, Hirokawa N, Hori M, Satoh T, Hareyama M. Does contrast-enhanced ultrasound reveal tumor angiogenesis in pancreatic ductal carcinoma? A prospective study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35:175-185
45. Lyshchik A, Fleischer AC, Huamani J, Hallahan DE, Brissova M, Gore JC. Molecular imaging of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 expression using targeted contrast-enhanced high-frequency ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:1575-1586
46. Watson KD, Hu X, Lai CY, et al. Novel ultrasound and DCE-MRI analyses after antiangiogenic treatment with a selective VEGF receptor inhibitor. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37:909-921
47. European Association for the Study of the Liver; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012; 56:908-943
48. Ng CS, Waterton JC, Kundra V, et al. Reproducibility and comparison of DCE-MRI and DCECT perfusion parameters in a rat tumor model. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2012; 11:279-288
49. Workman P, Aboagye EO, Chung YL, et al. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:580-598
50. Smith-Jones PM, Solit D, Afroze F, Rosen N, Larson SM. Early tumor response to Hsp90 therapy using HER2 PET: Comparison with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:793-796
51. Oude Munnink TH, de Vries EG, Vedelaar SR, et al. Lapatinib and 17AAG reduce (89)Zr-trastuzumab- F(ab')(2) uptake in SKBR3 tumor xenografts. Mol Pharm 2012; 9:2995-3002
52. Kwekkeboom DJ, Bakker WH, Kam BL, et al. Treatment of patients with gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) tumours with the novel radiolabelled somatostatin analogue [177Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr3] octreotate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:417-422
53. Weissleder R ,Pittet MJ. Imaging in the era of molecular oncology. Nature 2008; 452: 580-589
54. Figueiras RG, Padhani AR, Goh VJ, et al. Novel oncologic drugs: What they do and how they affect images. RadioGraphics 2011; 31:2059-2091
55. Sleijfer S, Wiemer E, Verweij J. Drug insight: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)-The solid tumor model for cancer-specific treatment. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008; 5:102-111
56. Linton KM, Taylor MB, Radford JA. Response evaluation in gastrointestinal stromal tumours treated with imatinib: Misdiagnosis of disease progression on CT due to cystic change in liver metastases. Br J Radiol 2006; 79:e40-e44
57. Choi H. Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncologist 2008; 13(suppl 2):S4-S7
58. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1760-1764
59. Smith AD, Lieber ML, Shah SN. Assessing tumor response and detecting recurrence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on targeted therapy: Importance of size and attenuation on contrast-enhanced CT. AJR 2010; 194:157-165
60. Smith AD, Shah SN, Rini BI, Lieber ML, Remer EM. Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria: Assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy. AJR 2010; 194:1470-1478
61. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma: Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference.European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 2001; 35:421-430
62. Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Rezai P, Benson AB 3rd, Salem R. Response to treatment series. Part 2. Tumor response assessment-using new and conventional criteria. AJR 2011; 197:18-27
63. Riaz A, Memon K, Miller FH, et al. Role of the EASL, RECIST, and WHO response guidelines alone or in combination for hepatocellular carcinoma: Radiologic-pathologic correlation. J Hepatol 2011; 54:695-704
64. Galizia MS, Tore HG, Chalian H, McCarthy R, Salem R, Yaghmai V. MDCT necrosis quantification in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma response to yttrium 90 radioembolization therapy: Comparison of two-dimensional and volumetric techniques. Acad Radiol 2012; 19:48-54
65. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42:1031-1039
66. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010; 30:52-60
67. Kudo M, Kubo S, Takayasu K, et al. Response Evaluation Criteria in Cancer of the Liver (RECICL) proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (2009 revised version). Hepatol Res 2010; 40:686-692
68. Kirby AM, Mikhaeel NG. The role of FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: What is the evidence base? Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28:335-354
69. 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 1999; 17:1244
70. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:579-586
71. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:115-124
72. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1277-1280
73. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1963-1972
74. Norden AD, Drappatz J, Muzikansky A, et al. An exploratory survival analysis of anti-Angiogenic therapy for recurrent malignant glioma. J Neurooncol 2009; 92:149-155
75. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:228-247
76. Cools L, Osteaux M, Divano L, Jeanmart L. Prediction of splenic volume by a simple CT measurement: A statistical study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1983; 7:426-430
77. Cademartiri F, Luccichenti G, Maffei E, et al. Imaging for oncologic staging and follow-up: Review of current methods and novel approaches. Acta Biomed 2008; 79:85-91