Literature DB >> 25229053

Role of PET quantitation in the monitoring of cancer response to treatment: Review of approaches and human clinical trials.

Robert K Doot1, Elizabeth S McDonald1, David A Mankoff1.   

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) measures of cancer metabolism and cellular proliferation are increasingly being studied as markers of cancer response to treatment, with the goal of using them as predictors of patient therapeutic outcomes - i.e., as surrogate outcome measures. The primary PET radiotracers thus far used for monitoring response of cancer to treatment are 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for studying abnormal energy metabolism and 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) for examining cell proliferation. Both FDG and FLT PET quantitation of cancer response to treatment have been found to correlate with patient outcomes, mostly in single-center studies. The aim of this review is to summarize the impact of commonly selected PET quantitation methods on the ability of PET measures to quantitate cancer response to treatment. An understanding of the biochemistry and kinetics of FDG and FLT uptake and knowledge of the expected tracer uptake by cancerous processes relative to background uptake are required to select appropriate PET quantitation methods for trials testing for correlations between PET measures and patient outcome. PET measures may eventually serve as predictive biomarkers capable of guiding individualized treatment and improving patient outcomes and quality of life by early identification of ineffective therapies. PET can also potentially identify patients who would be good candidates for molecularly targeted drugs and monitor response to these personalized therapies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET; monitoring treatment; quantitative imaging; response to therapy

Year:  2014        PMID: 25229053      PMCID: PMC4163151          DOI: 10.1007/s40336-014-0071-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging        ISSN: 2281-5872


  64 in total

1.  Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method?

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Mark Muzi; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Authors:  R K Doot; J S Scheuermann; P E Christian; J S Karp; P E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future.

Authors:  Giampaolo Tomasi; Federico Turkheimer; Eric Aboagye
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Early FDG PET response assessment of preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: correlation with long-term outcome.

Authors:  Antonio Avallone; Luigi Aloj; Corradina Caracò; Paolo Delrio; Biagio Pecori; Fabiana Tatangelo; Nigel Scott; Rossana Casaretti; Francesca Di Gennaro; Massimo Montano; Lucrezia Silvestro; Alfredo Budillon; Secondo Lastoria
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  3'-Deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET for the early prediction of response to leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yong Sang Hong; Hye Ok Kim; Kyu-pyo Kim; Jae-Lyun Lee; Hwa Jung Kim; Seung Jin Lee; Sang Ju Lee; Seung Jun Oh; Jae Seung Kim; Jin-Sook Ryu; Dae Hyuk Moon; Tae Won Kim
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 6.  Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging.

Authors:  Mark Muzi; Finbarr O'Sullivan; David A Mankoff; Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Brenda F Kurland; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from Neo-ALTTO.

Authors:  Geraldine Gebhart; Cristina Gámez; Eileen Holmes; Javier Robles; Camilo Garcia; Montserrat Cortés; Evandro de Azambuja; Karine Fauria; Veerle Van Dooren; Gursel Aktan; Maria Antonia Coccia-Portugal; Sung-Bae Kim; Peter Vuylsteke; Hervé Cure; Holger Eidtmann; José Baselga; Martine Piccart; Patrick Flamen; Serena Di Cosimo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy.

Authors:  Jacques-Antoine Maisonobe; Camilo A Garcia; Hatem Necib; Bruno Vanderlinden; Alain Hendlisz; Patrick Flamen; Irène Buvat
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction.

Authors:  C K Kim; N C Gupta; B Chandramouli; A Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  18F-FLT PET during radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is an early predictor of outcome.

Authors:  Bianca A W Hoeben; Esther G C Troost; Paul N Span; Carla M L van Herpen; Johan Bussink; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  10 in total

1.  The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?

Authors:  Kyoungjune Pak; Seong-Jang Kim
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-04-18

Review 3.  Development of Companion Diagnostics.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Christine E Edmonds; Michael D Farwell; Daniel A Pryma
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.446

4.  Statistical assessment of treatment response in a cancer patient based on pre-therapy and post-therapy FDG-PET scans.

Authors:  E Wolsztynski; F O'Sullivan; J O'Sullivan; J F Eary
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The Value of Establishing the Quantitative Accuracy of PET/CT Imaging.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Speeding up PET/MR for cancer staging of children and young adults.

Authors:  Maryam Aghighi; Laura Jean Pisani; Ziyan Sun; Christopher Klenk; Himani Madnawat; Sandra Luna Fineman; Ranjana Advani; Rie Von Eyben; Daniel Owen; Andrew Quon; Michael Moseley; Heike E Daldrup-Link
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Quantifying bias and precision of kinetic parameter estimation on the PennPET Explorer, a long axial field-of-view scanner.

Authors:  Varsha Viswanath; Austin R Pantel; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Robert Doot; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Joel S Karp
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2020-09-02

8.  Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for PET Image Reconstruction: Concept.

Authors:  Mohamed Abouhawwash; Adam M Alessio
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 11.037

9.  PET Use in Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis.

Authors:  Naresh Damuka; Meghana Dodda; Kiran Kumar Solingapuram Sai
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

10.  NiftyPET: a High-throughput Software Platform for High Quantitative Accuracy and Precision PET Imaging and Analysis.

Authors:  Pawel J Markiewicz; Matthias J Ehrhardt; Kjell Erlandsson; Philip J Noonan; Anna Barnes; Jonathan M Schott; David Atkinson; Simon R Arridge; Brian F Hutton; Sebastien Ourselin
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2018-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.