Literature DB >> 18060765

How to assess anti-tumour efficacy by imaging techniques.

Stephen J Gwyther1, Lawrence H Schwartz.   

Abstract

Response evaluation in the assessment of potential new anti-cancer therapies is undergoing intense investigation and change. Current imaging techniques most commonly used in early phase clinical trials are limited to providing reliable and reproducible anatomical data demonstrating a change in size and reduction in tumour volume thereby inferring patient benefit. Current imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by their nature require computer programs and software. This is a constantly evolving field and upgraded technology enables faster acquisition times for scans, greater anatomical detail and accurate volumetric data to be acquired. Dynamic studies allow contrast agents to be visualised in any given structure over time, so blood flow, blood volume and permeability can be assessed thereby demonstrating function. The advent of many new anti-cancer agents with novel modes of action such as anti-angiogenesis agents act by preventing the development of a suitable blood supply to sustain tumour growth. Such agents do not actively destroy tumour cells so do not exhibit a 'cytocidal' effect as traditional anti-cancer agents do but prevent tumour growth, so can be regarded as 'cytostatic' agents. Therefore, traditional response evaluation criteria may not be appropriate to assess drug efficacy or 'activity' in achieving patient benefit. New techniques have also been developed so the 'function' or metabolism can be demonstrated and tumour serum markers and other factors also require consideration rather than relying on a single modality alone. This article reviews the current accepted response criteria and highlights some newer techniques which will almost certainly play a major role in the assessment of new anti-cancer therapy, particularly in the development of cytostatic agents which are playing an ever increasing role.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18060765     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.10.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  13 in total

1.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in oncology.

Authors:  Concepción González Hernando; Laura Esteban; Teresa Cañas; Enrique Van den Brule; Miguel Pastrana
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Imaging-based tumor treatment response evaluation: review of conventional, new, and emerging concepts.

Authors:  Hee Kang; Ho Yun Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Jae-Hun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  Non-invasive molecular imaging for preclinical cancer therapeutic development.

Authors:  A C O'Farrell; S D Shnyder; G Marston; P L Coletta; J H Gill
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 8.739

4.  Three-dimensional Radiologic Assessment of Chemotherapy Response in Ewing Sarcoma Can Be Used to Predict Clinical Outcome.

Authors:  Maryam Aghighi; Justin Boe; Jarrett Rosenberg; Rie Von Eyben; Rakhee S Gawande; Philippe Petit; Tarsheen K Sethi; Jeremy Sharib; Neyssa M Marina; Steven G DuBois; Heike E Daldrup-Link
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Immuno-Oncology: The Third Paradigm in Early Drug Development.

Authors:  Juan Martin-Liberal; Cinta Hierro; Maria Ochoa de Olza; Jordi Rodon
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.493

6.  Quantitative and volumetric European Association for the Study of the Liver and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors measurements: feasibility of a semiautomated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.

Authors:  MingDe Lin; Olivier Pellerin; Nikhil Bhagat; Pramod P Rao; Romaric Loffroy; Roberto Ardon; Benoit Mory; Diane K Reyes; Jean-François Geschwind
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.464

7.  DNA damage response as a biomarker in treatment of leukemias.

Authors:  H Dorota Halicka; M Fevzi Ozkaynak; Oya Levendoglu-Tugal; Claudio Sandoval; Karen Seiter; Malgorzata Kajstura; Frank Traganos; Somasunadaram Jayabose; Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.534

8.  Objective assessment of tumour response to therapy based on tumour growth kinetics.

Authors:  E Mehrara; E Forssell-Aronsson; P Bernhardt
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 9.  Functional imaging biomarkers for assessing response to treatment in liver and lung metastases.

Authors:  Livia Bernardin; Elizabeth A M O'Flynn; Nandita M Desouza
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Assessment of early tumor response to cytotoxic chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in human breast cancer xenografts.

Authors:  Jian-Wei Wang; Wei Zheng; Ji-Bin Liu; Yao Chen; Long-Hui Cao; Rong-Zhen Luo; An-Hua Li; Jian-Hua Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.