Molecular imaging biomarkers for oncology clinical trials

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 525-528

  Mankoff, David A ^a   Pryma, Daniel A ^a   Clark, Amy S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer biomarkers; Cancer therapy; Clinical trials

Indexed keywords

3' FLUOROTHYMIDINE F 18; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROESTRADIOL F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; TUMOR MARKER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

CANCER BIOMARKERS; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIALS;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84901295975     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.126128     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Henry NL, Hayes DF. Cancer biomarkers. Mol Oncol. 2012;6:140-146.
2. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784-2795.
3. McShane LM, Hayes DF. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4223-4232.
4. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45: 290-299.
5. Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141:13-22.
6. Shankar LK, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, Fitzgerald TJ. Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:1891-1897.
7. Kostakoglu L, Gallamini A. Interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: would PET-adapted clinical trials lead to a paradigm shift? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1082-1093.
8. Kluetz PG, Pierce W, Maher VE, et al. Radium Ra 223 dichloride injection: U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug approval summary. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:9-14.
9. Gebhart G, Gamez C, Holmes E, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from Neo-ALTTO. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1862-1868.
10. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1656-1664.
11. DeMichele A, Berry DA, Zujewski J, et al. Developing safety criteria for introducing new agents into neoadjuvant trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19: 2817-2823.
12. Linden HM, Dehdashti F. Novel methods and tracers for breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43:324-329.
13. Tsujikawa T, Yoshida Y, Kudo T, et al. Functional images reflect aggressiveness of endometrial carcinoma: estrogen receptor expression combined with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1598-1604.
14. Peterson LM, Kurland BF, Schubert EK, et al. A Phase 2 Study of 16a-[18F]-fluoro-17b-estradiol positron emission tomography (FES-PET) as a marker of hormone sensitivity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Mol Imaging Biol. October 30, 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
15. Kenny LM, Al-Nahhas A, Aboagye EO. Novel PET biomarkers for breast cancer imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:333-335.
16. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):1S-10S.
17. Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Trinkaus K, et al. PET-based estradiol challenge as a predictive biomarker of response to endocrine therapy in women with estrogenreceptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113:509-517.
18. Kurland BF, Gadi VK, Specht JM, et al. Feasibility study of FDG PET as an indicator of early response to aromatase inhibitors and trastuzumab in a heterogeneous group of breast cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:34.
19. Contractor KB, Kenny LM, Stebbing J, et al. [18F]-39deoxy-39- fluorothymidine positron emission tomography and breast cancer response to docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:7664-7672.
20. Jolles PR, Kostakoglu L, Bear HD, et al. ACRIN 6688 phase II study of fluorine-18 39-deoxy-3 fluorothymidine (FLT) in invasive breast cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2012;29(suppl):TPS125.
21. 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.
22. Kostakoglu L, Cheson BD. Lymphomas: role of molecular imaging for staging, prognostic evaluation, and treatment response. Front Oncol. 2013;3:212.
23. Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Specht JM, et al. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2400-2409.
24. Emmering J, Krak NC, Van der Hoeven JJ, et al. Preoperative [18F] FDG-PET after chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: prognostic value as compared with histopathology. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1573-1577.
25. Specht JM, Mankoff DA. Advances in molecular imaging for breast cancer detection and characterization. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:206.