RATIONALE: Early detection of tumor response to therapy is a key goal. Finding measurement algorithms capable of early detection of tumor response could individualize therapy treatment as well as reduce the cost of bringing new drugs to market. On an individual basis, the urgency arises from the desire to prevent continued treatment of the patient with a high-cost and/or high-risk regimen with no demonstrated individual benefit and rapidly switch the patient to an alternative efficacious therapy for that patient. In the context of bringing new drugs to market, such algorithms could demonstrate efficacy in much smaller populations, which would allow phase 3 trials to achieve statistically significant decisions with fewer subjects in shorter trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This consensus-based article describes multiple, image modality-independent means to assess the relative performance of algorithms for measuring tumor change in response to therapy. In this setting, we describe specifically the example of measurement of tumor volume change from anatomic imaging as well as provide an overview of other promising generic analytic methods that can be used to assess change in heterogeneous tumors. To support assessment of the relative performance of algorithms for measuring small tumor change, data sources of truth are required. RESULTS: Very short interval clinical imaging examinations and phantom scans provide known truth for comparative evaluation of algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: For a given category of measurement methods, the algorithm that has the smallest measurement noise and least bias on average will perform best in early detection of true tumor change.
RATIONALE: Early detection of tumor response to therapy is a key goal. Finding measurement algorithms capable of early detection of tumor response could individualize therapy treatment as well as reduce the cost of bringing new drugs to market. On an individual basis, the urgency arises from the desire to prevent continued treatment of the patient with a high-cost and/or high-risk regimen with no demonstrated individual benefit and rapidly switch the patient to an alternative efficacious therapy for that patient. In the context of bringing new drugs to market, such algorithms could demonstrate efficacy in much smaller populations, which would allow phase 3 trials to achieve statistically significant decisions with fewer subjects in shorter trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This consensus-based article describes multiple, image modality-independent means to assess the relative performance of algorithms for measuring tumor change in response to therapy. In this setting, we describe specifically the example of measurement of tumor volume change from anatomic imaging as well as provide an overview of other promising generic analytic methods that can be used to assess change in heterogeneous tumors. To support assessment of the relative performance of algorithms for measuring small tumor change, data sources of truth are required. RESULTS: Very short interval clinical imaging examinations and phantom scans provide known truth for comparative evaluation of algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: For a given category of measurement methods, the algorithm that has the smallest measurement noise and least bias on average will perform best in early detection of true tumor change.
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
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Chaya S Moskowitz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Naiyer A Rizvi; Mark G Kris Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Naama R Bogot; Ella A Kazerooni; Aine M Kelly; Leslie E Quint; Benoit Desjardins; Bin Nan Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Amita Kamath; Wade S Smith; William J Powers; Alessandro Cianfoni; Jeffrey D Chien; Tom Videen; Michael T Lawton; Bruce Finley; William P Dillon; Max Wintermark Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: K James; E Eisenhauer; M Christian; M Terenziani; D Vena; A Muldal; P Therasse Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-03-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Michelle Wanner-Roybal; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Geoffrey McLennan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Kay M Pepin; Jun Chen; Kevin J Glaser; Yogesh K Mariappan; Brian Reuland; Steven Ziesmer; Rickey Carter; Stephen M Ansell; Richard L Ehman; Kiaran P McGee Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Laurence P Clarke; Barbara S Croft; Robert Nordstrom; Huiming Zhang; Gary Kelloff; J Tatum Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laurence P Clarke; Robert J Nordstrom; Huiming Zhang; Pushpa Tandon; Yantian Zhang; George Redmond; Keyvan Farahani; Gary Kelloff; Lori Henderson; Lalitha Shankar; James Deye; Jacek Capala; Paula Jacobs Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Michelle Wanner-Roybal; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Geoffrey McLennan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243