Jose Mauricio Mota1, Andrew J Armstrong2,3, Steven M Larson4,5, Josef J Fox5,6, Michael J Morris7,8. 1. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Divisions of Medical Oncology and Urology, Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 7. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. morrism@mskcc.org. 8. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. morrism@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 90% of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have a distribution of disease that includes bone metastases demonstrated on a Technetium-99m (99mTc-MDP) bone scan. The Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 and 3 Consensus Criteria standardized the criteria for assessing progression based on the development of new lesions. These criteria have been recognized by regulatory authorities for drug approval. The bone scan index (BSI) is a method to quantitatively measure the burden of bony disease, and can assess both disease progression and regression. The automated BSI (aBSI) is a method of computer analysis to assess BSI, and is being qualified as a clinical trials endpoint. METHODS: Manual searching was used to identify the literature on BSI and aBSI. We summarize the most relevant aspects of the retrospective and prospective studies evaluating aBSI measurements, and provide a critical discussion on the potential advantages and caveats of aBSI. RESULTS: The development of neural artificial networks (EXINI boneBSI) to automatically determine the BSI reduces the turnaround time for assessing BSI with high reproducibility and accuracy. Several studies showed that the concordance between aBSI and BSI, as well as the interobserver concordance of aBSI, was >0.95. In a phase 3 assessment of aBSI, a doubling value increased the risk of death in 20%, pre-treatment aBSI values independently correlated with overall survival (OS) and time to symptomatic progression. Retrospective studies suggest that a decrease in aBSI after treatment may correlate with higher survival when compared with increasing aBSI. CONCLUSIONS: aBSI provides a quantitative measurement that is feasible, reproducible, and in analyses to date correlates with OS and symptomatic progression. These findings support the aBSI to risk-stratify men with mCRPC for clinical trial enrollment. Future studies quantifying aBSI change over time as an intermediate endpoint for evaluating new systemic therapies are needed.
BACKGROUND: Up to 90% of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have a distribution of disease that includes bone metastases demonstrated on a Technetium-99m (99mTc-MDP) bone scan. The Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 and 3 Consensus Criteria standardized the criteria for assessing progression based on the development of new lesions. These criteria have been recognized by regulatory authorities for drug approval. The bone scan index (BSI) is a method to quantitatively measure the burden of bony disease, and can assess both disease progression and regression. The automated BSI (aBSI) is a method of computer analysis to assess BSI, and is being qualified as a clinical trials endpoint. METHODS: Manual searching was used to identify the literature on BSI and aBSI. We summarize the most relevant aspects of the retrospective and prospective studies evaluating aBSI measurements, and provide a critical discussion on the potential advantages and caveats of aBSI. RESULTS: The development of neural artificial networks (EXINI boneBSI) to automatically determine the BSI reduces the turnaround time for assessing BSI with high reproducibility and accuracy. Several studies showed that the concordance between aBSI and BSI, as well as the interobserver concordance of aBSI, was >0.95. In a phase 3 assessment of aBSI, a doubling value increased the risk of death in 20%, pre-treatment aBSI values independently correlated with overall survival (OS) and time to symptomatic progression. Retrospective studies suggest that a decrease in aBSI after treatment may correlate with higher survival when compared with increasing aBSI. CONCLUSIONS: aBSI provides a quantitative measurement that is feasible, reproducible, and in analyses to date correlates with OS and symptomatic progression. These findings support the aBSI to risk-stratify men with mCRPC for clinical trial enrollment. Future studies quantifying aBSI change over time as an intermediate endpoint for evaluating new systemic therapies are needed.
Authors: David Ulmert; Reza Kaboteh; Josef J Fox; Caroline Savage; Michael J Evans; Hans Lilja; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Thomas Björk; Axel Gerdtsson; Anders Bjartell; Peter Gjertsson; Peter Höglund; Milan Lomsky; Mattias Ohlsson; Jens Richter; May Sadik; Michael J Morris; Howard I Scher; Karl Sjöstrand; Alice Yu; Madis Suurküla; Lars Edenbrandt; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Walter M Stadler; Celestia Higano; Ethan Basch; Karim Fizazi; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tomasz M Beer; Michael A Carducci; Kim N Chi; Paul G Corn; Johann S de Bono; Robert Dreicer; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Maha Hussain; Wm Kevin Kelly; Glenn Liu; Christopher Logothetis; David Nanus; Mark N Stein; Dana E Rathkopf; Susan F Slovin; Charles J Ryan; Oliver Sartor; Eric J Small; Matthew Raymond Smith; Cora N Sternberg; Mary-Ellen Taplin; George Wilding; Peter S Nelson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Morris; Arturo Molina; Eric J Small; Johann S de Bono; Christopher J Logothetis; Karim Fizazi; Paul de Souza; Philip W Kantoff; Celestia S Higano; Jinhui Li; Thian Kheoh; Steven M Larson; Shannon L Matheny; Vahid Naini; Tomasz Burzykowski; Thomas W Griffin; Howard I Scher; Charles J Ryan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dana E Rathkopf; Tomasz M Beer; Yohann Loriot; Celestia S Higano; Andrew J Armstrong; Cora N Sternberg; Johann S de Bono; Bertrand Tombal; Teresa Parli; Suman Bhattacharya; Andrew Krivoshik; Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ali H D Alshehri; Sarah O S Osman; Kevin M Prise; Caoimhghin Campfield; P G Turner; Suneil Frcr PhD Jain; Joe M O'Sullivan; Aidan J Cole Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 3.039