Literature DB >> 19956379

Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources.

Charles R Meyer1, Samuel G Armato, Charles P Fenimore, Geoffrey McLennan, Luc M Bidaut, Daniel P Barboriak, Marios A Gavrielides, Edward F Jackson, Michael F McNitt-Gray, Paul E Kinahan, Nicholas Petrick, Binsheng Zhao.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19956379      PMCID: PMC2781075          DOI: 10.1593/tlo.09208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Oncol        ISSN: 1936-5233            Impact factor:   4.243


  49 in total

1.  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

2.  Artifacts in computed tomography scanning of moving objects.

Authors:  George T Y Chen; Jong H Kung; Kevin P Beaudette
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.934

3.  A comparative study of acquisition schemes for diffusion tensor imaging using MRI.

Authors:  N G Papadakis; D Xing; C L Huang; L D Hall; T A Carpenter
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response--initial results.

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

5.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods.

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

6.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials.

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

7.  Perfusion CT compared to H(2) (15)O/O (15)O PET in patients with chronic cervical carotid artery occlusion.

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

8.  Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement.

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

9.  PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

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

10.  Perfusion MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant meningiomas.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Lars A Rödiger; Tianzhen Shen; Jingtao Miao; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.804

View more
  28 in total

1.  MR elastography derived shear stiffness--a new imaging biomarker for the assessment of early tumor response to chemotherapy.

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

2.  Ultrasound elastography as an imaging biomarker for detection of early tumor response to chemotherapy in a murine breast cancer model: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Jian-Wei Wang; Zhi-Xing Guo; Qing-Guang Lin; Wei Zheng; Shu-Lian Zhuang; Shi-Yang Lin; An-Hua Li; Xiao-Qing Pei
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy.

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

4.  Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

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

5.  Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Amy E Perkins; Chi-Hua Tung
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-11-23

6.  The Quantitative Imaging Network: NCI's Historical Perspective and Planned Goals.

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

Review 7.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

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

8.  PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

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

9.  Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error.

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

10.  Magnetic resonance assessment of response to therapy: tumor change measurement, truth data and error sources.

Authors:  Edward F Jackson; Daniel P Barboriak; Luc M Bidaut; Charles R Meyer
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.