Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 169-186

  O'Connor, James P B ^a   Aboagye, Eric O ^b   Adams, Judith E ^c   Aerts, Hugo J W L ^d   Barrington, Sally F ^e   Beer, Ambros J ^f   Boellaard, Ronald ^g   Bohndiek, Sarah E ^h   Brady, Michael ⁱ   Brown, Gina ^j   Buckley, David L ^k   Chenevert, Thomas L ^l   Clarke, Laurence P ^m   Collette, Sandra ⁿ   Cook, Gary J ^e   Desouza, Nandita M ^o   Dickson, John C ^e   Dive, Caroline ^p   Evelhoch, Jeffrey L ^q   Faivre Finn, Corinne ^a   Gallagher, Ferdia A ^h   Gilbert, Fiona J ^h   Gillies, Robert J ^r   Goh, Vicky ^e   Griffiths, John R ^h   Groves, Ashley M ^e   Halligan, Steve ^e   Harris, Adrian L ⁱ   Hawkes, David J ^e   Hoekstra, Otto S ^s   Huang, Erich P ^m   Hutton, Brian F ^e   Jackson, Edward F ^t   Jayson, Gordon C ^a   Jones, Andrew ^u   Koh, Dow Mu ^o   Lacombe, Denis ⁿ   Lambin, Philippe ^v   Lassau, Nathalie ^w   Leach, Martin O ^o   Lee, Ting Yim ^x   Leen, Edward L ^b   Lewis, Jason S ^y   Liu, Yan ⁿ   Lythgoe, Mark F ^e   Manoharan, Prakash ^a   Maxwell, Ross J ^z   Miles, Kenneth A ^e   Morgan, Bruno ^aa   Morris, Steve ^e   Ng, Tony ^e   Padhani, Anwar R ^ab   Parker, Geoff J M ^a   Partridge, Mike ⁱ   Pathak, Arvind P ^ac   Peet, Andrew C ^ad   Punwani, Shonit ^e   Reynolds, Andrew R ^o   Robinson, Simon P ^o   Shankar, Lalitha K ^m   Sharma, Ricky A ^e   Soloviev, Dmitry ^h   Stroobants, Sigrid ^ae   Sullivan, Daniel C ^af   Taylor, Stuart A ^e   Tofts, Paul S ^ag   Tozer, Gillian M ^ah   Van Herk, Marcel ^a   Walker Samuel, Simon ^e   Wason, James ^ai   Williams, Kaye J ^a   Workman, Paul ^o   Yankeelov, Thomas E ^aj   Brindle, Kevin M ^h   McShane, Lisa M ^m   Jackson, Alan ^a   Waterton, John C ^a   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ULM   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^j ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^m NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁿ EORTC DATA CENTER   (Belgium)

^o INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^p UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^q MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^r H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^s VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^t UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^u CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^v MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^w INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^x ROBARTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^y MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^z NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^aa UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^ab MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^ac JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^ad UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^ae UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^af DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^ag UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^ah UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^ai MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^aj UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APREPITANT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BISPHOSPHONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; DOXORUBICIN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GALLIUM DOTATATE GA 68; LAPATINIB; MERTIATIDE TC 99M; PENTETREOTIDE IN 111; PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITOR; RUXOLITINIB; SUNITINIB; TILMANOCEPT TC 99M; TRASTUZUMAB; VINTAFOLIDE; FOLIC ACID; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; TECHNETIUM 99M ETARFOLATIDE; TECHNETIUM COMPLEX; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BONE SCINTISCANNING; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; CARDIOTOXICITY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DUAL ENERGY X RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ENDOSCOPY; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HUMAN; IMAGING BIOMARKER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY; MYELOFIBROSIS; NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOR; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVARY CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEPTOR OCCUPANCY; RECTUM CANCER; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; SURGICAL MARGIN; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELECTION BIAS; STANDARDS;

BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; FOLIC ACID; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; ORGANOTECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84982113402     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162     Document Type: Article

References (168)

1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69, 89-95 (2001).
2. Food and Drug Administration & National Institutes of Health. BEST (Biomarkers, Endpoints, and other tools) resource. NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK326791 (accessed 4 February 2016).
3. Lesko, L. J. & Atkinson, A. J. Jr. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41, 347-366 (2001).
4. Micheel, C., Nass, S. J. & Omenn, G. S. & Institute of Medicine Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials. Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward (National Academy of Sciences, 2012).
5. Workman, P. et al. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 580-598 (2006).
6. Yap, T. A., Sandhu, S. K., Workman, P. & de Bono, J. S. Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 514-523 (2010).
7. Hait, W. N. Forty years of translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 1, 383-390 (2011).
8. La Thangue, N. B. & Kerr, D. J. Predictive biomarkers: a paradigm shift towards personalized cancer medicine. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 587-596 (2011).
9. Poste, G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature 469, 156-157 (2011).
10. Hayes, D. F. et al. Breaking a vicious cycle. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 196cm6 (2013).
11. Macleod, M. R. et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383, 101-104 (2014).
12. Lee, J. W. et al. Method validation and measurement of biomarkers in nonclinical and clinical samples in drug development: a conference report. Pharm. Res. 22, 499-511 (2005).
13. Waterton, J. C. & Pylkkanen, L. Qualification of imaging biomarkers for oncology drug development. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 409-415 (2012).
14. Cooksey, D. A review of UK health research funding (TSO, 2006).
15. Sung, N. S. et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289, 1278-1287 (2003).
16. Lee, J. W. et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm. Res. 23, 312-328 (2006).
17. Goodsaid, F. M., Frueh, F. W. & Mattes, W. Strategic paths for biomarker qualification. Toxicology 245, 219-223 (2008).
18. Srivastava, S. et al. Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for biospecimen-based assessment modalities. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5672-5677 (2008).
19. Chetty, R. K. et al. A systematic approach to preclinical and clinical safety biomarker qualification incorporating Bradford Hill's principles of causality association. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 88, 260-262 (2010).
20. Khleif, S. N., Doroshow, J. H. & Hait, W. N. AACR-FDA-NCI Cancer Biomarkers Collaborative consensus report: advancing the use of biomarkers in cancer drug development. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 3299-3318 (2010).
21. Cancer Research UK. Pharmacological biomarker roadmap. Cancer Research UK http://www. cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/ pharmacological.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
22. NIH. http://imaging.cancer.gov/images/documents (2004).
23. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trial imaging endpoint process standards guidance for industry [draft guidance]. fda.gov http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ guidances/ucm268555.pdf (2015).
24. Woodcock, J. & Woosley, R. The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu. Rev. Med. 59, 1-12 (2008).
25. Clarke, L. P. et al. The Quantitative Imaging Network: NCI's historical perspective and planned Goals. Transl. Oncol. 7, 1-4 (2014).
26. Shankar, L. K. The clinical evaluation of novel imaging methods for cancer management. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 738-744 (2012).
27. Huang, E. P. et al. Meta-analysis of the technical performance of an imaging procedure: guidelines and statistical methodology. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 24, 141-174 (2015).
28. Sullivan, D. C. et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology 277, 813-825 (2015).
29. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Imaging Program. http://imaging.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/acrin (accessed 30 November 2015).
30. European Society of Radiology. ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 4, 147-152 (2013).
31. Hunter, A. J. The Innovative Medicines Initiative: a pre-competitive initiative to enhance the biomedical science base of Europe to expedite the development of new medicines for patients. Drug Discov. Today 13, 371-373 (2008).
32. Boellaard, R. et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42, 328-354 (2015).
33. Tofts, P. S. et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 10, 223-232 (1999).
34. Leach, M. O. et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br. J. Cancer 92, 1599-1610 (2005).
35. Shankar, L. K. et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J. Nucl. Med. 47, 1059-1066 (2006).
36. Padhani, A. R. et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11, 102-125 (2009).
37. Leen, E. et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur. Radiol. 22, 1442-1450 (2012).
38. Dorfman, G. S., Sullivan, D. C., Schnall, M. D. & Matrisian, L. M. The Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for image-based assessment modalities. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5678-5684 (2008).
39. Buckler, A. J. et al. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology 259, 875-884 (2011).
40. Barker, A., Kettle, J. G., Nowak, T. & Pease, J. E. Expanding medicinal chemistry space. Drug Discov. Today 18, 298-304 (2013).
41. Blagg, J. & Workman, P. Chemical biology approaches to target validation in cancer. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 17, 87-100 (2014).
42. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS atlas) (American College of Radiology, 2013).
43. Edge, S. B. et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook 7th edn (Springer, 2010).
44. Therasse, P. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92, 205-216 (2000).
45. Eisenhauer, E. A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
46. Reid, D. M. et al. Guidance for the management of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss: a consensus position statement from a UK Expert Group. Cancer Treat. Rev. 34 (Suppl. 1), S3-S18 (2008).
47. Plana, J. C. et al. Expert consensus for multimodality imaging evaluation of adult patients during and after cancer therapy: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 27, 911-939 (2014).
48. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Summary of opinion. EMA http://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 30 November 2015).
49. Food and Drug Administration. Novel drugs approved using surrogate endpoints. FDA http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/NewsEvents/Testimony/UCM445375.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
50. Bergstrom, M. et al. Human positron emission tomography studies of brain neurokinin 1 receptor occupancy by aprepitant. Biol. Psychiatry 55, 1007-1012 (2004).
51. Willett, C. G. et al. Direct evidence that the VEGF-specific antibody bevacizumab has antivascular effects in human rectal cancer. Nat. Med. 10, 145-147 (2004).
52. Avril, N. & Propper, D. Functional PET imaging in cancer drug development. Future Oncol. 3, 215-228 (2007).
53. O'Connor, J. P., Jackson, A., Parker, G. J., Roberts, C. & Jayson, G. C. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 167-177 (2012).
54. Lassau, N. et al. Standardization of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies: the French multicenter Support for Innovative and Expensive Techniques Study. Invest. Radiol. 47, 711-716 (2012).
55. van Elmpt, W. et al. The PET-boost randomised phase II dose-escalation trial in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 104, 67-71 (2012).
56. Taylor, F. G. et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 34-43 (2014).
57. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646-674 (2011).
58. Ueda, S. et al. Baseline tumor oxygen saturation correlates with a pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 72, 4318-4328 (2012).
59. Gallagher, F. A., Kettunen, M. I. & Brindle, K. M. Imaging pH with hyperpolarized 13C. NMR Biomed. 24, 1006-1015 (2011).
60. Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 441-446 (2012).
61. Gillies, R. J., Kinahan, P. E. & Hricak, H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278, 563-577 (2016).
62. Fletcher, J. W. et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J. Nucl. Med. 49, 480-508 (2008).
63. Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y. & Lodge, M. A. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 50 (Suppl. 1), 122S-150S (2009).
64. Barrington, S. F. et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 3048-3058 (2014).
65. Na, F. et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on F18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prediction value for survival and local control in non-small-cell lung cancer receiving radiotherapy: meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Oncol. 9, 834-842 (2014).
66. Kayani, I. et al. Sequential FDG-PET/CT as a biomarker of response to sunitinib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 17, 6021-6028 (2011).
67. Sarker, D. et al. First-in-human phase I study of pictilisib (GDC-0941), a potent pan-class I phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 77-86 (2015).
68. Michaelis, L. C. & Ratain, M. J. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 409-414 (2006).
69. Lassau, N. et al. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: early evaluation of response to bevacizumab therapy at dynamic contrast-enhanced US with quantification- preliminary results. Radiology 258, 291-300 (2011).
70. Patterson, D. M., Padhani, A. R. & Collins, D. J. Technology Insight: water diffusion MRI-a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 5, 220-233 (2008).
71. Waterton, J. C. in New Applications of NMR in Drug Discovery and Development (eds Garrido, L. & Beckmann, N.) 341-368 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2013).
72. Parkinson, D. R., Johnson, B. E. & Sledge, G. W. Making personalized cancer medicine a reality: challenges and opportunities in the development of biomarkers and companion diagnostics. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 619-624 (2012).
73. Gonzalez de Castro, D., Clarke, P. A., Al-Lazikani, B. & Workman, P. Personalized cancer medicine: molecular diagnostics, predictive biomarkers, and drug resistance. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93, 252-259 (2013).
74. Hayes, D. F. Biomarker validation and testing. Mol. Oncol. 9, 960-966 (2015).
75. Schilsky, R. L. Personalized medicine in oncology: the future is now. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 363-366 (2010).
76. Cai, W. & Chen, X. Multimodality molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis. J. Nucl. Med. 49 (Suppl. 2), 113S-128S (2008).
77. International Organization for Standardization. Statistics-vocabulary and symbols-part 2: applied statistics. ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-catalogue/ catalogue-tc/catalogue-detail.htm?csnumber=40147 (accessed 30 November 2015).
78. Barnes, S. L., Whisenant, J. G., Loveless, M. E. & Yankeelov, T. E. Practical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in small animal models of cancer: data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation. Pharmaceutics 4, 442-478 (2012).
79. Jackson, A. et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br. J. Radiol. 76, 153-162 (2003).
80. Galbraith, S. M. et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed. 15, 132-142 (2002).
81. Koh, D. M. et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. Eur. Radiol. 19, 2728-2738 (2009).
82. O'Connor, J. P. et al. Quantifying antivascular effects of monoclonal antibodies to vascular endothelial growth factor: insights from imaging. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 6674-6682 (2009).
83. Haacke, E. M. et al. New algorithm for quantifying vascular changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independent of absolute T1 values. Magn. Reson. Med. 58, 463-472 (2007).
84. Leach, M. O. et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365, 1769-1778 (2005).
85. Kessler, L. G. et al. The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 24, 9-26 (2015).
86. Lewis, M. et al. Quality control within the multicentre perfusion CT study of primary colorectal cancer (PROSPeCT): results of an iodine density phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 24, 2309-2318 (2014).
87. Henoumont, C., Laurent, S. & Vander Elst, L. How to perform accurate and reliable measurements of longitudinal and transverse relaxation times of MRI contrast media in aqueous solutions. Contrast Media Mol. Imaging 4, 312-321 (2009).
88. McShane, L. M. & Hayes, D. F. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 4223-4232 (2012).
89. McShane, L. M. et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 1180-1184 (2005).
90. Chand, M. et al. The prognostic significance of postchemoradiotherapy high-resolution MRI and histopathology detected extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 261, 473-479 (2015).
91. Aerts, H. J. et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat. Commun. 5, 4006 (2014).
92. Prentice, R. L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431-440 (1989).
93. Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I. & Schatzkin, A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat. Med. 11, 167-178 (1992).
94. Buyse, M., Sargent, D. J., Grothey, A., Matheson, A. & de Gramont, A. Biomarkers and surrogate end points-the challenge of statistical validation. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7, 309-317 (2010).
95. Hill, A. B. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295-300 (1965).
96. Wagner, J. A. Strategic approach to fit-for-purpose biomarkers in drug development. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 48, 631-651 (2008).
97. Maxwell, R. J. et al. Evaluation of the anti-vascular effects of combretastatin in rodent tumours by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed. 15, 89-98 (2002).
98. LoRusso, P. M. et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of ZD6126, a novel vascular-targeting agent, in patients with solid tumors. Invest. New Drugs 26, 159-167 (2008).
99. Drevs, J. et al. Phase I clinical study of AZD2171, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3045-3054 (2007).
100. Jonker, D. J. et al. A phase I study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a dual VEGFR and FGFR inhibitor, brivanib, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Ann. Oncol. 22, 1413-1419 (2011).
101. Gazelle, G. S., McMahon, P. M., Siebert, U. & Beinfeld, M. T. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the assessment of diagnostic imaging technologies. Radiology 235, 361-370 (2005).
102. NIH. https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/CIP/RIDER (accessed 30 November 2015).
103. 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).
104. Micheel, C. M. & Ball, J. R. Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease (National Academy of Sciences, 2010).
105. European Medicines Agency. Qualification opinion. ema.europe.eu http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en- GB/document-library/Regulatory-and-procedural- guideline/2015/11/WC500196569.pdf (2015).
106. Polley, M. Y. et al. Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 105, 1677-1683 (2013).
107. Sargent, D. J. et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 290-299 (2009).
108. Food and Drug Administration. Biomarker qualification program. FDA http://www.fda.gov/drugs/ developmentapprovalprocess/ drugdevelopmenttoolsqualificationprogram/ ucm284076.htm (accessed 30 November 2015).
109. Dietrich, C. F. et al. An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall Med. 33, 344-351 (2012).
110. Bland, J. M. & Altman, D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307-310 (1986).
111. Lee, T. Y. et al. CT perfusion as an early biomarker of treatment efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer: An ECOG-ACRIN and NRG GOG study 9 [abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 5522 (2015).
112. Chu, R. et al. Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicentre randomized controlled trials: a simulation study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11, 21 (2011).
113. Nuyts, J. et al. Cardiac phantom measurement validating the methodology for a cardiac multi-centre trial with positron emission tomography. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 29, 1588-1593 (2002).
114. Yankeelov, T. E. et al. Quantitative imaging in cancer clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 284-290 (2016).
115. O'Connor, J. P. B. et al. Oxygen-enhanced MRI accurately identifies, quantifies, and maps tumor hypoxia in preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res. 76, 787-795 (2016).
116. Workman, P. et al. Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research. Br. J. Cancer 102, 1555-1577 (2010).
117. Frese, K. K. & Tuveson, D. A. Maximizing mouse cancer models. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 645-658 (2007).
118. Nardella, C., Lunardi, A., Patnaik, A., Cantley, L. C. & Pandolfi, P. P. The APL paradigm and the "co-clinical trial" project. Cancer Discov. 1, 108-116 (2011).
119. Sharpless, N. E. & Depinho, R. A. The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 741-754 (2006).
120. Graham, T. J. et al. Preclinical evaluation of imaging biomarkers for prostate cancer bone metastasis and response to cabozantinib. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju033 (2014).
121. Hidalgo, M. et al. Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 4, 998-1013 (2014).
122. Hodgkinson, C. L. et al. Tumorigenicity and genetic profiling of circulating tumor cells in small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Med. 20, 897-903 (2014).
123. Malaney, P., Nicosia, S. V. & Dave, V. One mouse, one patient paradigm: new avatars of personalized cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 344, 1-12 (2014).
124. National Institute of Health. Oncology co-clinical imaging research resources to encourage consensus on quantitative imaging methods and precision medicine (U24). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/ pa-files/PAR-15-266.html (accessed 19 February 2016).
125. Wason, J., Marshall, A., Dunn, J., Stein, R. C. & Stallard, N. Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Br. J. Cancer 110, 1950-1957 (2014).
126. Gould, A. L. Sample size re-estimation: recent developments and practical considerations. Stat. Med. 20, 2625-2643 (2001).
127. Jennison, C. & Turnbull, B. W. Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials (Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 1999).
128. Gerety, E. L. et al. Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design. Ann. Oncol. 26, 2113-2118 (2015).
129. O'Connor, J. P. et al. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 249-257 (2015).
130. Halle, C. et al. Hypoxia-induced gene expression in chemoradioresistant cervical cancer revealed by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Cancer Res. 72, 5285-5295 (2012).
131. National Cancer Institute. Informatics technology for cancer research. NCI http://itcr.nci.nih.gov/ (accessed 30 November 2015).
132. European Society of Radiology. ESR position paper on imaging biobanks. Insights Imaging 6, 403-410 (2015).
133. Bernsen, M. R., Kooiman, K., Segbers, M., van Leeuwen, F. W. & de Jong, M. Biomarkers in preclinical cancer imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42, 579-596 (2015).
134. Boult, J. K. et al. False-negative MRI biomarkers of tumour response to targeted cancer therapeutics. Br. J. Cancer 106, 1960-1966 (2012).
135. Bossuyt, P. M. et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 351, h5527 (2015).
136. O'Connor, J. P. & Jayson, G. C. Do imaging biomarkers relate to outcome in patients treated with VEGF inhibitors? Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6588-6598 (2012).
137. Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 36, 111-147 (1974).
138. 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).
139. Meads, C. et al. Positron emission tomography/ computerised tomography imaging in detecting and managing recurrent cervical cancer: systematic review of evidence, elicitation of subjective probabilities and economic modelling. Health Technol. Assess. 17, 1-323 (2013).
140. Mowatt, G. et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 17, 1-281 (2013).
141. Lawler, M., Kaplan, R., Wilson, R. H. & Maughan, T. Changing the paradigm-multistage multiarm randomized trials and stratified cancer medicine. Oncologist 20, 849-851 (2015).
142. Wason, J. M. et al. A Bayesian adaptive design for biomarker trials with linked treatments. Br. J. Cancer 113, 699-705 (2015).
143. Moher, D. et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340, c869 (2010).
144. Griebsch, I. et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 95, 801-810 (2006).
145. Looking back on the millennium in medicine [Editorial]. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 42-49 (2000).
146. McLeod, D. G. et al. Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care versus standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 97, 247-254 (2005).
147. World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment (World Health Organization, 1979).
148. Choi, H. 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).
149. Zagar, T. M., Cardinale, D. M. & Marks, L. B. Breast cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular disease. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13, 172-184 (2016).
150. Food and Drug Administration. Herceptin. Highlights of prescribing information. Accessdata.FDA http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda-docs/ label/2010/103792s5256lbl.pdf (accessed 8 October 2015).
151. Avram, A. M. Radioiodine scintigraphy with SPECT/CT: an important diagnostic tool for thyroid cancer staging and risk stratification. J. Nucl. Med. 53, 754-764 (2012).
152. Kam, B. L. et al. Lutetium-labelled peptides for therapy of neuroendocrine tumours. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 39 (Suppl. 1), S103-S112 (2012).
153. Ambrosini, V., Nanni, C. & Fanti, S. The use of gallium-68 labeled somatostatin receptors in PET/CT imaging. PET Clin. 9, 323-329 (2014).
154. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Familial breast cancer: classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. nice.org.uk https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ cg164?unlid=98244063720151237206 (2013).
155. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Summary of opinion. EMA http://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 30 November 2015).
156. Quarles van Ufford, H. M. et al. Added value of baseline 18F-FDG uptake in serial 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of response of solid extracerebral tumors to systemic cytotoxic neoadjuvant treatment: a meta-analysis. J. Nucl. Med. 51, 1507-1516 (2010).
157. Lara, P. N. Jr. et al. SU5416 plus interferon alpha in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a phase II California Cancer Consortium Study with biological and imaging correlates of angiogenesis inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 4772-4781 (2003).
158. Bendell, J. C. et al. Phase I, dose-escalation study of BKM120, an oral pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 282-290 (2012).
159. Maynard, J., Ricketts, S. A., Gendrin, C., Dudley, P. & Davies, B. R. 2-Deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography demonstrates target inhibition with the potential to predict anti-tumour activity following treatment with the AKT inhibitor AZD5363. Mol. Imaging Biol. 15, 476-485 (2013).
160. Engelman, J. A. Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: opportunities, challenges and limitations. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9, 550-562 (2009).
161. 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).
162. Naish, J. H. et al. Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced CT biomarkers in bladder cancer. Magn. Reson. Med. 66, 219-226 (2011).
163. Ng, C. S. et al. Dependence of DCE-MRI biomarker values on analysis algorithm. PLoS ONE 10, e0130168 (2015).
164. Sabbatini, P. et al. Prognostic significance of extent of disease in bone in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 948-957 (1999).
165. Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) summary. Accessdata.FDA http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh- docs/pdf12/K122205.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
166. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Lymphoseek to help locate lymph nodes in patients with certain cancers. FDA http://www.fda.gov/ NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ ucm343525.htm (accessed 30 November 2015).
167. European Medicines Agency. Withdrawn applications, vynfinit. EMA http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index. jsp?curl = pages/medicines/human/ medicines/002571/wapp/Initial-authorisation/human- wapp-000187.jsp&mid = WC0b01ac058001d128 (accessed 30 November 2015).
168. Lassau, N. et al. Validation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in predicting outcomes of antiangiogenic therapy for solid tumors: the French multicenter support for innovative and expensive techniques study. Invest. Radiol. 49, 794-800 (2014).