Literature DB >> 15693656

Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET.

Norbert E Avril1, Wolfgang A Weber.   

Abstract

Establishing new surrogate end points for monitoring response to treatment is needed for current therapy modalities and for new therapeutic strategies including molecular targeted cancer therapies. PET as a functional imaging technology provides rapid, reproducible, noninvasive in vivo assessment and quantification of several biologic processes targeted by these therapies. PET is useful in a variety of clinical relevant applications, including distinguishing between radiation necrosis and tumor recurrence, determining the resectability of recurrent tumor, and evaluating response to therapy. FDG-PET has demonstrated efficacy for monitoring therapeutic response in a wide range of cancers, including breast, esophageal, lung, head and neck, and lymphoma. FDG-PET can assess tumor glucose use with high reproducibility. Following therapy, the decrease of glucose use correlates with the reduction of viable tumor cells. FDG-PET allows the prediction of therapy response early in the course of therapy and determining the viability of residual masses after completion of treatment. The molecular basis for the success of FDG-PET is the rapid reduction of tumor glucose metabolism in effective therapies. Of even higher clinical relevance is the accurate identification of nonresponders in patients without a significant change in tumor glucose metabolism after initiation of therapy. PET imaging can easily visualize these changes in metabolic activity and indicate, sometimes within hours of the first treatment, whether or not a patient will respond to a particular therapy. In contrast to CT, MR imaging, or ultrasound, PET imaging allows identification of responding and nonresponding tumors early in the course of therapy. With this information, physicians can rapidly modify ineffective therapies for individual patients and thereby potentially improve patient outcomes and reduce cost. One of the major limitations for the routine application of FDG-PET imaging for therapy monitoring is that no generally accepted cutoff values have been established to differentiate optimally between responders and nonresponders. The patient series are still relatively small and frequently consist of different tumor types and different therapy regimens. Prospective studies including a sufficient number of patients are needed to define cutoff values to differentiate between responder and nonresponder for different tumors and different treatment regimes. In the future, PET imaging can also serve in the evaluation of new therapeutic agents, new experimental treatments, and specifically in monitoring clinical phase II studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15693656     DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  56 in total

Review 1.  Biological imaging for selecting and monitoring cancer therapy; a pathway to individualised therapy.

Authors:  Markus Schwaiger; Christian Peschel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Activity-based costing evaluation of [18F]-fludeoxyglucose production.

Authors:  Bruno Krug; Annie Van Zanten; Anne-Sophie Pirson; Ralph Crott; Thierry Vander Borght
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  The role of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in predicting plexiform neurofibroma progression.

Authors:  Michael J Fisher; Sandip Basu; Eva Dombi; Jian Q Yu; Brigitte C Widemann; Avrum N Pollock; Avital Cnaan; Hongming Zhuang; Peter C Phillips; Abass Alavi
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 4.130

4.  Assessment of patient selection criteria for quantitative imaging with respiratory-gated positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Stephen R Bowen; Larry A Pierce; Adam M Alessio; Chi Liu; Scott D Wollenweber; Charles W Stearns; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-09-24

Review 5.  Clinical oncologic applications of PET/MRI: a new horizon.

Authors:  Sasan Partovi; Andres Kohan; Christian Rubbert; Jose Luis Vercher-Conejero; Chiara Gaeta; Roger Yuh; Lisa Zipp; Karin A Herrmann; Mark R Robbin; Zhenghong Lee; Raymond F Muzic; Peter Faulhaber; Pablo R Ros
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-03-20

6.  Longitudinal monitoring of tumor antiangiogenic therapy with near-infrared fluorophore-labeled agents targeted to integrin αvβ3 and vascular endothelial growth factor.

Authors:  Xianlei Sun; Teng Ma; Hao Liu; Xinhe Yu; Yue Wu; Jiyun Shi; Bing Jia; Huiyun Zhao; Fan Wang; Zhaofei Liu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Full-Dose PET Image Estimation from Low-Dose PET Image Using Deep Learning: a Pilot Study.

Authors:  Sydney Kaplan; Yang-Ming Zhu
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  Functional imaging of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Ian D Davis; Damien M Bolton; Andrew M Scott
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Deep Auto-context Convolutional Neural Networks for Standard-Dose PET Image Estimation from Low-Dose PET/MRI.

Authors:  Lei Xiang; Yu Qiao; Dong Nie; Le An; Qian Wang; Dinggang Shen
Journal:  Neurocomputing       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 5.719

10.  A phase I study of gefitinib, capecitabine, and celecoxib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  Elaine T Lam; Cindy L O'Bryant; Michele Basche; Daniel L Gustafson; Natalie Serkova; Anna Baron; Scott N Holden; Janet Dancey; S Gail Eckhardt; Lia Gore
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 6.261

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.