Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies

Abstract

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are used extensively in drug development and cancer research, but important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers. A tailored 'roadmap' is required for the development of new IBs to be used either in clinical research or for decision-making in healthcare. In this Consensus statement, a group of experts assembled by CRUK and the EORTC present 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs. Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

References 168

1. 1.

   Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89-95.

   Not in our library10.1067/mcp.2001.113989

2. 2.

   BEST (Biomarkers, Endpoints, and other tools) resource.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:347-366.

   Not in our library10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.41.1.347

4. 4.

   Micheel C, Nass SJ, Omenn GS, Institute of Medicine Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials. Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. 2012.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Workman P, et al. Minimally invasive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technologies in hypothesis-testing clinical trials of innovative therapies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:580-598.

   Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djj162

6. 6.

   Yap TA, Sandhu SK, Workman P, de Bono JS. Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:514-523.

   Not in our library10.1038/nrc2870

7. 7.

   Hait WN. Forty years of translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 2011;1:383-390.

   Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-11-0196

8. 8.

   La Thangue NB, Kerr DJ. Predictive biomarkers: a paradigm shift towards personalized cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:587-596.

   Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.121

9. 9.

   Poste G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature. 2011;469:156-157.

   Not in our library10.1038/469156a

10. 10.

    Hayes DF, et al. Breaking a vicious cycle. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:196cm6.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3005950

11. 11.

    Macleod MR, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101-104.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6

12. 12.

    Lee JW, et al. Method validation and measurement of biomarkers in nonclinical and clinical samples in drug development: a conference report. Pharm Res. 2005;22:499-511.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11095-005-2495-9

13. 13.

    Waterton JC, Pylkkanen L. Qualification of imaging biomarkers for oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:409-415.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.037

14. 14.

    Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. 2006.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.39059.444120.80

15. 15.

    Sung NS, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289:1278-1287.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.289.10.1278

16. 16.

    Lee JW, et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm Res. 2006;23:312-328.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11095-005-9045-3

17. 17.

    Goodsaid FM, Frueh FW, Mattes W. Strategic paths for biomarker qualification. Toxicology. 2008;245:219-223.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tox.2007.12.023

18. 18.

    Srivastava S, et al. Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for biospecimen-based assessment modalities. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:5672-5677.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1267

19. 19.

    Chetty RK, et al. A systematic approach to preclinical and clinical safety biomarker qualification incorporating Bradford Hill’s principles of causality association. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88:260-262.

    Not in our library10.1038/clpt.2010.77

20. 20.

    Khleif SN, Doroshow JH, Hait WN. AACR-FDA-NCI Cancer Biomarkers Collaborative consensus report: advancing the use of biomarkers in cancer drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3299-3318.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-0880

21. 21.

    Pharmacological biomarker roadmap.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    2004.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Clinical trial imaging endpoint process standards guidance for industry [draft guidance]. 2015.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Woodcock J, Woosley R. The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med. 2008;59:1-12.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.med.59.090506.155819

25. 25.

    Clarke LP, et al. The Quantitative Imaging Network: NCI’s historical perspective and planned Goals. Transl Oncol. 2014;7:1-4.

    Not in our library10.1593/tlo.13832

26. 26.

    Shankar LK. The clinical evaluation of novel imaging methods for cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9:738-744.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.186

27. 27.

    Huang EP, et al. Meta-analysis of the technical performance of an imaging procedure: guidelines and statistical methodology. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24:141-174.

    Not in our library10.1177/0962280214537394

28. 28.

    Sullivan DC, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2015;277:813-825.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2015142202

29. 29.

    Cancer Imaging Program.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging. 2013;4:147-152.

    Not in our library10.1007/s13244-013-0220-5

31. 31.

    Hunter AJ. The Innovative Medicines Initiative: a pre-competitive initiative to enhance the biomedical science base of Europe to expedite the development of new medicines for patients. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13:371-373.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drudis.2008.02.009

32. 32.
    FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 · 2014

    No notice
33. 33.

    Tofts PS, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223-232.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-s

34. 34.
    The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations · 2005

    No notice
35. 35.

    Shankar LK, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059-1066.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Padhani AR, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11:102-125.

    Not in our library10.1593/neo.81328

37. 37.

    Leen E, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1442-1450.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00330-011-2373-2

38. 38.

    Dorfman GS, Sullivan DC, Schnall MD, Matrisian LM. The Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for image-based assessment modalities. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:5678-5684.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1264

39. 39.

    Buckler AJ, et al. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology. 2011;259:875-884.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.10100800

40. 40.

    Barker A, Kettle JG, Nowak T, Pease JE. Expanding medicinal chemistry space. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:298-304.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drudis.2012.10.008

Cited by papers we hold 19

• Biomarkers in Cancer Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis · 2023
  No notice
• Radiochemistry for positron emission tomography · 2023
  No notice
• Radiolabeled EGFR TKI as predictive imaging biomarkers in NSCLC patients – an overview · 2022
  Not checked
• Diagnostic performance of radiomics in adrenal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis · 2022
  Not checked
• Molecular Biomarkers in Cancer · 2022
  No notice
• A review on advances in 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics standardisation and application in lung disease management · 2022
  Not checked
• Imaging biomarkers for evaluating tumor response: RECIST and beyond · 2021
  No notice
• Predicting treatment response from longitudinal images using multi-task deep learning · 2021
  No notice
• Reliability and prognostic value of radiomic features are highly dependent on choice of feature extraction platform · 2020
  No notice
• How to develop a meaningful radiomic signature for clinical use in oncologic patients · 2020
  No notice
• Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group · 2020
  No notice
• Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma—a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2020
  No notice
• Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions · 2019
  No notice
• Quantifying blood‐brain barrier leakage in small vessel disease: Review and consensus recommendations · 2019
  No notice
• Ultrasensitive detection of miRNA with an antimonene-based surface plasmon resonance sensor · 2019
  No notice
• Repeatability of Multiparametric Prostate MRI Radiomics Features · 2019
  No notice
• Motion model ultrasound localization microscopy for preclinical and clinical multiparametric tumor characterization · 2018
  No notice
• A radiogenomic dataset of non-small cell lung cancer · 2018
  No notice
• Defining the biological basis of radiomic phenotypes in lung cancer · 2017
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.