Literature DB >> 16783564

Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques.

S J Gwyther1.   

Abstract

Response evaluation by means of response rates using radiological imaging techniques is well established and plays a pivotal role in the development of new anti-cancer agents. It is typically employed in phase II clinical trials and acts as a surrogate for patient benefit, thereby allowing potentially active agents to be fast tracked; at the same time, inactive agents can be discarded earlier, with fewer patients being exposed to them. Response evaluation has evolved over the past 25 years, and various imaging stipulations have been introduced to try and add some uniformity to the process and enable a comparison to be made between different studies. However, imaging still requires a well-defined anatomical lesion or lesions to be viewed and relies on the measurement of a reduction in tumour size during treatment as the basis for presumed clinical benefit. This implies a cytocidal mode of action of the agent under review, but over the past 5 years increasing numbers of new cytostatic agents have been developed, such as anti-angiogenesis agents and specific enzyme receptor antagonists, where the overall effect is to prevent new tumour cells from growing or developing rather than directly killing pre-existing tumour cells. Anatomical imaging alone is therefore inappropriate as the tumour would not necessarily be expected to reduce in size. Other surrogates of tumour growth and metabolism have to be utilised. Functional studies are therefore necessary; anatomical imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging can be modified so that dynamic studies can be undertaken, and newer techniques such as positron emission tomography scanning can be employed. The latter has poor spatial resolution but when combined with CT it has the ability to measure function while the anatomical site is accurately determined. The aim now is to devise new response evaluation techniques and criteria incorporating functional imaging to enable accurate assessment of active new anti-cancer agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16783564     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0130-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  6 in total

1.  Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and on-site measurements.

Authors:  A L Belton; S Saini; K Liebermann; G W Boland; E F Halpern
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Malik E Juweid; Gregory A Wiseman; Julie M Vose; Justine M Ritchie; Yusuf Menda; James E Wooldridge; Felix M Mottaghy; Eric M Rohren; Norbert M Blumstein; Alan Stolpen; Brian K Link; Sven N Reske; Michael M Graham; Bruce D Cheson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-04-18       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Comparisons of Cooperative Group evaluation criteria for multiple-drug therapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  H L Davis; P Multhauf; J Klotz
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1980 Feb-Mar

5.  Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Authors:  A B Miller; B Hoogstraten; M Staquet; A Winkler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  The role of functional and molecular imaging in cancer drug discovery and development.

Authors:  B M Seddon; P Workman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.039

  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Tracking tumor radiotherapy response in vivo with Cherenkov-excited luminescence ink imaging.

Authors:  Jennifer A Soter; Ethan P M LaRochelle; Brook K Byrd; Irwin I Tendler; Jason R Gunn; Boyu Meng; Rendy R Strawbridge; Dennis J Wirth; Scott C Davis; David J Gladstone; Lesley A Jarvis; Brian W Pogue
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and curative resection.

Authors:  Chen-Ping Hsieh; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Ching-Feng Wu; Jui-Ying Fu; Yun-Hen Liu; Yi-Cheng Wu; Cheng-Ta Yang; Ching-Yang Wu
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Usefulness of contrast enhanced ultrasound in monitoring therapeutic response after hepatocellular carcinoma treatment.

Authors:  Davide Roccarina; Matteo Garcovich; Maria Elena Ainora; Laura Riccardi; Maurizio Pompili; Antonio Gasbarrini; Maria Assunta Zocco
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-07-18

4.  Antiangiogenic and radiation therapy: early effects on in vivo computed tomography perfusion parameters in human colon cancer xenografts in mice.

Authors:  Ying Ren; Dominik Fleischmann; Kira Foygel; Lior Molvin; Amelie M Lutz; Albert C Koong; R Brooke Jeffrey; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Molecularly targeted therapy using bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer: a pilot study for the new CT response criteria.

Authors:  Ho Yun Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Hye Sun Hwang; Ju Won Lee; Myung-Ju Ahn; Keunchil Park; Tae Sung Kim; Chin A Yi; Myung Jin Chung
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  APOMAB, a La-specific monoclonal antibody, detects the apoptotic tumor response to life-prolonging and DNA-damaging chemotherapy.

Authors:  Fares Al-Ejeh; Jocelyn M Darby; Chris Tsopelas; Douglas Smyth; Jim Manavis; Michael P Brown
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.