Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional MRI and CT biomarkers in oncology

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imaging biomarkers derived from MRI or CT describe functional properties of tumours and normal tissues. They are finding increasing numbers of applications in diagnosis, monitoring of response to treatment and assessment of progression or recurrence. Imaging biomarkers also provide scope for assessment of heterogeneity within and between lesions. A wide variety of functional parameters have been investigated for use as biomarkers in oncology. Some imaging techniques are used routinely in clinical applications while others are currently restricted to clinical trials or preclinical studies. Apparent diffusion coefficient, magnetization transfer ratio and native T1 relaxation time provide information about structure and organization of tissues. Vascular properties may be described using parameters derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced CT, transverse relaxation rate (R2*), vessel size index and relative blood volume, while magnetic resonance spectroscopy may be used to probe the metabolic profile of tumours. This review describes the mechanisms of contrast underpinning each technique and the technical requirements for robust and reproducible imaging. The current status of each biomarker is described in terms of its validation, qualification and clinical applications, followed by a discussion of the current limitations and future perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Charles-Edwards EM, de Souza NM. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and its application to cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:135–43.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ. Technology insight: water diffusion MRI – a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5(4):220–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. LeBihan D, Turner R, Moonen CT, Pekar J. Imaging of diffusion and microcirculation with gradient sensitization: design, strategy and significance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(1):7–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sinkus R, Van Beers BE, Vilgrain V, de Souza N, Waterton JC. Apparent diffusion coefficient from magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:425–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heijmen L, Verstappen MC, ter Voert EE, Punt CJ, Oyen WJ, de Geus-Oei L-F, et al. Tumour response prediction by diffusion-weighted MR imaging: ready for clinical use? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;83:194–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Padhani AR, Lu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11(2):102–25.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heijmen L, ter Voert EE, Nagtegaal ID, Span P, Bussink J, Punt CJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in liver metastases of colorectal cancer: reproducibility and biological validation. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:748–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Messiou C, Pennert K, Davidson RL, Giles SL, et al. Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging – value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology. 2011;261(1):182–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koh D-M, Blackledge M, Collins DJ, Padhani AR, Wallace T, Wilton B, et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficient of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2728–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Donati OF, Chong D, Nanz D, Boss A, Froehlich JM, Andres E, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology. 2014;270(2):454–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, Matsui M, Ida M, Fujiwara S, et al. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology. 2008;249(2):624–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, Ikushima I, Shigematu Y, Hirai T, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:53–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Muraoka N, Uematsu H, Kimura H, Imamura Y, Fujiwara Y, Murakami M, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in pancreatic cancer: characterization and histopathological correlations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:1302–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Cobelli F, Giganti F, Orsenigo E, Cellina M, Esposito A, Agostini G, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient modifications in assessing gastro-oesophageal cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment: comparison with tumour regression grade at histology. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2165–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haradome H, Grazioli L, Morone M, Gambarini S, Kwee TC, Takahara T, et al. T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for discriminating benign from malignant focal liver lesions: diagnostic abilities of single versus combined interpretations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(6):1388–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cieszanowski A, Anysz-Grodzicka A, Szeszkowski W, Kaczynski B, Maj E, Gornicka B, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions using quantitative techniques: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient values and T2 relaxation times. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(11):2514–24.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu LM, Xu JR, Hua J, Gu HY, Chen J, Haacke EM, et al. Can diffusion-weighted imaging be used as a reliable sequence in the detection of malignant pulmonary nodules and masses? Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(2):235–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Razek AA, Farouk A, Mousa A, Nabil N. Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in characterization of renal tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35(3):332–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ei Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Mezban SD, Huang P, Kamel IR, Macura KJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;256(1):64–73.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Fine SW, Zhang J, Inurrigarro G, et al. Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging – correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology. 2008;246(2):480–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Charles-Edwards EM, Messiou C, Morgan VA, De Silva SS, McWhinney NA, Katesmark M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology. 2008;249(2):541–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Souza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, Morgan VA, Ashley SA, Fisher C, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(7):774–82.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, Gamanagatti S, Seth A, Iyer VK, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(3):349–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Payne GS, Schmidt M, Morgan VA, Giles S, Bridges J, Ind T, et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance diffusion and spectroscopy measurements as predictive biomarkers in stage 1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(2):246–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang Y, Chen JY, Xie CM, Mo YX, Liu XW, Liu Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of response of advanced cervical cancer to chemoradiation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35(1):102–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wybranski C, Zeile M, Löwenthal D, Fischbach F, Pech M, Röhl FW, et al. Value of diffusion weighted MR imaging as an early surrogate parameter for evaluation of tumor response to high-dose-rate brachytherapy of colorectal liver metastases. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6(1):43.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elmi A, Hedgire SS, Covarrubias D, Abtahi SM, Hahn PF, Harisinghani M. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a non-invasive predictor of treatment response and recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(10):e524–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nakamura K, Imafuku N, Nishida T, Niwa I, Joja I, Hongo A, et al. Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(2):335–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS. Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(5):1111–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Simpkin CJ, West S, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology. 2014;271(3):785–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Tunariu N, Orton MR, Padhani AR, Leach MO, et al. Assessment of treatment response by total tumor volume and global apparent diffusion coefficient using diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with metastatic bone disease: a feasibility study. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e91779.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Malyarenko D, Galban CJ, Londy FJ, Meyer CR, Johnson TD, Rehemtulla A, et al. Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:1238–46.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wakefield JC, Kyriazi S, Winfield JM, Morgan VA, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of advanced ovarian cancer: evaluation of the variability of overall disease burden assessment methods. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2014; poster presentation no. 553.

  34. Waterton JC, Pylkkanen L. Qualification of imaging biomarkers in oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:409–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wolff SD, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 1989;10:135–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolff SD, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer imaging: practical aspects and clinical applications. Radiology. 1994;192:593–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Henkelman RM, Stanisz GJ, Graham SJ. Magnetization transfer in MRI: a review. NMR Biomed. 2001;14:57–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Barker GJ, Tofts PS, Gass A. An interleaved sequence for accurate and reproducible clinical measurement of magnetization transfer ratio. Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;14(4):403–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Li W, Zhang Z, Nicolai J, Yang G-Y, Omary RA, Larson AC. Magnetization transfer MRI in pancreatic cancer xenograft models. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68:1291–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lundbom N. Determination of magnetization transfer contrast in tissue: an MR imaging study of brain tumours. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(6):1279–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kurki T, Lundbom N, Kalimo H, Valtonen S. MR classification of brain gliomas: value of magnetization transfer and conventional imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13:501–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sormani MP, Iannucci G, Rocca MA, Mastronardo G, Cercignani M, Miniucci L, et al. Reproducibility of magnetization transfer ratio histogram-derived measures of the brain in healthy volunteers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:133–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pui MH. Magnetization transfer analysis of brain tumour, infection, and infarction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12:395–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bonini RH, Zeotti D, Saraiva LA, Trad CS, Filho JM, Carrara HH, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio as a predictor of malignancy in breast lesions: preliminary results. Magn Reson Med. 2008;59:1030–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Takashima S, Wang J, Takayama F, Momose M, Kawakami A, Saito A, et al. Parotid masses: prediction of malignancy using magnetization transfer and MR imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1577–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Arnold JF, Kotas M, Pyzalski RW, Pracht ED, Flentje M, Jakob PM. Potential of magnetization transfer MRI for target volume definition in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:1417–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Martens MH, Lambregts DM, Papanikolaou N, Heijnen LA, Riedl RG, Zur Hausen A, et al. Magnetization transfer ratio: a potential biomarker for the assessment of postradiation fibrosis in patients with rectal cancer. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(1):29–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hajnal JV, Baudouin CJ, Oatridge A, Young IR, Bydder GM. Design and implementation of magnetization transfer pulse sequences for clinical use. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992;16:7–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bottomley PA, Hardy CJ, Argersinger RE, Allen-Moore G. A review of 1H nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation in pathology: are T1 and T2 diagnostic? Med Phys. 1987;14(1):1–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Roberts C, Jayson GC. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9:167–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Weidensteiner C, Allegrini PR, Sticker-Jantscheff M, Romanet V, Ferretti S, McSheehy PM. Tumour T1 changes in vivo are highly predictive of response to chemotherapy and reflect the number of viable tumour cells – a preclinical study in mice. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:88.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Crawley AP, Henkelman RM. A comparison of one-shot and recovery methods in T1 imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1988;7:23–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fram EK, Herfkens RJ, Johnson GA, Glover GH, Karis JP, Shimakawa A, et al. Rapid calculation of T1 using variable flip angle gradient refocused imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1987;5(3):201–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang HZ, Riederer SJ, Lee JN. Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation estimation using limited flip angles. Magn Reson Med. 1987;5:399–416.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, Griffiths JR, Horsman MR, Jackson A, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1599–610.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jamin Y, Tucker ER, Poon E, Popov S, Vaughan L, Boult JKR, et al. Evaluation of clinically translatable MR imaging biomarkers of therapeutic response in the TH-MYCN transgenic mouse model of neuroblastoma. Radiology. 2013;266(1):130–40.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. McSheehy PMJ, Weidensteiner C, Cannet C, Ferretti S, Laurent D, Ruetz S, et al. Quantified tumor T1 is a generic early-response imaging biomarker for chemotherapy reflecting cell viability. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(1):212–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. O’Connor JP, Carano RA, Clamp AR, Ross J, Ho CC, Jackson A, et al. Quantifying antivascular effects of monoclonal antibodies to vascular endothelial growth factor: insights from imaging. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(21):6674–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Jensen KE, Sørensen PG, Thomsen C, Christoffersen P, Henriksen O, Karle H. Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in patients with acute leukemia during and after chemotherapy. Acta Radiol. 1990;31:361–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL. Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(8):1004–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jackson A, O'Connor JP, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(12):3449–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Li SP, Padhani AR. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(4):745–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(1):91–101.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(3):223–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lankester KJ, Taylor JN, Stirling JJ, Boxall J, D'Arcy JA, Collins DJ, et al. Dynamic MRI for imaging tumor microvasculature: comparison of susceptibility and relaxivity techniques in pelvic tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:796–805.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Messiou C, Orton M, Ang JE, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Mears D, et al. Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity. Radiology. 2012;265(2):426–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(2):189–95.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ciunci CA, Perini RF, Avadhani AN, Kang HC, Sun W, Redlinger M, et al. Phase 1 and pharmacodynamic trial of everolimus in combination with cetuximab in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(1):77–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Yap TA, Olmos D, Brunetto AT, Tunariu N, Barriuso J, Riisnaes R, et al. Phase I trial of a selective c-MET inhibitor ARQ 197 incorporating proof of mechanism pharmacodynamic studies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(10):1271–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Nathan P, Zweifel M, Padhani AR, Koh DM, Ng M, Collins DJ, et al. Phase I trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) in combination with bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(12):3428–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Glade Bender JL, Lee A, Reid JM, Baruchel S, Roberts T, Voss SD, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of pazopanib in children with soft tissue sarcoma and other refractory solid tumors: a children's oncology group phase I consortium report. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):3034–43.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, Hsu C, Hu FC, Hsu CH, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol. 2011;55(4):858–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Jarnagin WR, Schwartz LH, Gultekin DH, Gönen M, Haviland D, Shia J, et al. Regional chemotherapy for unresectable primary liver cancer: results of a phase II clinical trial and assessment of DCE-MRI as a biomarker of survival. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(9):1589–95.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Shih TT, Hou HA, Liu CY, Chen BB, Tang JL, Chen HY, et al. Bone marrow angiogenesis magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: peak enhancement ratio is an independent predictor for overall survival. Blood. 2009;113(14):3161–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Pickles MD, Manton DJ, Lowry M, Turnbull LW. Prognostic value of pre-treatment DCE-MRI parameters in predicting disease free and overall survival for breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(3):498–505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Flaherty KT, Rosen MA, Heitjan DF, Gallagher ML, Schwartz B, Schnall MD, et al. Pilot study of DCE-MRI to predict progression-free survival with sorafenib therapy in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7(4):496–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Miles KA, Lee T-Y, Goh V, Klotz E, Cuenod C, Bisdas S, et al. Current status and guidelines for the assessment of tumour vascular support with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(7):1430–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ng CS, Waterton JC, Kundra V, Brammer D, Ravoori M, Han L, et al. Reproducibility and comparison of DCE-MRI and DCE-CT perfusion parameters in a rat tumor model. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2012;11(3):279–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Driscoll B, Keller H, Jaffray D, Coolens C. Development of a dynamic quality assurance testing protocol for multisite clinical trial DCE-CT accreditation. Med Phys. 2013;40(8):081906.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Daley FM, Barber PR, Pierce G, Finch J, et al. Operable non-small cell lung cancer: correlation of volumetric helical dynamic contrast-enhanced CT parameters with immunohistochemical markers of tumor hypoxia. Radiology. 2012;264(2):581–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Chen Y, Zhang J, Dai J, Feng X, Lu H, Zhou C. Angiogenesis of renal cell carcinoma: perfusion CT findings. Abdom Imaging. 2012;35(5):622–8.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Goh V, Glynne-Jones R. Perfusion CT imaging of colorectal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20130811.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Lind JS, Meijerink MR, Dingemans AM, van Kuijk C, Ollers MC, de Ruysscher D, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT in patients treated with sorafenib and erlotinib for non-small cell lung cancer: a new method of monitoring treatment? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2890–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Okada H, Hontsu S, Miura S, Asakawa I, Tamamoto T, Katayama E, et al. Changes of tumor size and tumor contrast enhancement during radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer may be suggestive of treatment response. J Radiat Res. 2012;53(2):326–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lim WT, Ng QS, Ivy P, Leong SS, Singh O, Chowbay B, et al. A phase II study of pazopanib in Asian patients with recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(16):5481–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Tofts PS, Collins DJ. Multicentre imaging measurements for oncology and in the brain. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:S213–26.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Padhani A. Science to practice: what does MR oxygenation imaging tell us about human breast cancer hypoxia? Radiology. 2010;254(1):1–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. McPhail LD, Robinson SP. Intrinsic susceptibility MR imaging of chemically induced rat mammary tumors: relationship to histologic assessment of hypoxia and fibrosis. Radiology. 2010;254(1):110–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Baker LC, Boult JK, Jamin Y, Gilmour LD, Walker-Samuel S, Burrell JS, et al. Evaluation and immunohistochemical qualification of carbogen-induced ΔR2* as a noninvasive imaging biomarker of improved tumor oxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(1):160–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Jamin Y, Glass L, Hallsworth A, George R, Koh D-M, Pearson AD, et al. Intrinsic susceptibility MRI identifies tumors with ALK-F1174L mutation in genetically-engineered murine models of high-risk neuroblastoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92886.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rodrigues LM, Howe FA, Griffiths JR, Robinson SP. Tumor R2* is a prognostic indicator of acute radiotherapeutic response in rodent tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:482–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Bradley DP, Tessier JJ, Ashton SE, Waterton JC, Wilson Z, Worthington PL, et al. Correlation of MRI biomarkers with tumor necrosis in Hras5 tumor xenograft in athymic rats. Neoplasia. 2007;9(5):382–91.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Li SP, Taylor NJ, Makris A, Ah-See M-LW, Beresford MJ, Stirling JJ, et al. Primary human breast adenocarcinoma: imaging and histologic correlates of intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MR imaging before and during chemotherapy. Radiology. 2010;257(3):643–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Chopra S, Foltz WD, Milosevic MF, Toi A, Bristow RG, Menard C, et al. Comparing oxygen-sensitive MRI (BOLD R2*) with oxygen electrode measurements: a pilot study in men with prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Biol. 2009;85(9):805–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Jhaveri KS, Cleary SP, Fischer S, Haider MA, Pargoankar V, Khalidi K, et al. Blood oxygen level-dependent liver MRI: can It predict microvascular invasion in HCC? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:692–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Dennie J, Mandeville JB, Boxerman JL, Packard SD, Rosen BR, Weisskoff RM. NMR imaging of changes in vascular morphology due to tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med. 1998;40(6):793–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Tropres I, Grimault S, Vaeth A, Grillon E, Julien C, Payen J-F, et al. Vessel size imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45(3):397–408.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kiselev VG, Strecker R, Ziyeh S, Hennig J. Vessel size imaging in humans. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53:553–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Schmainda KM, Rand SD, Joseph AM, Lund R, Ward BD, Pathak AP, et al. Characterization of a first-pass gradient-echo spin-echo method to predict brain tumor grade and angiogenesis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(9):1524–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Batchelor TT, Sorensen AG, di Tomaso E, Zhang W-T, Duda DG, Cohen KS, et al. AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell. 2007;11:83–95.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Pannetier N, Lemasson B, Christen T, Tachrount M, Tropres I, Farion R, et al. Vessel size index measurements in a rat model of glioma: comparison of the dynamic (Gd) and steady-state (iron-oxide) susceptibility contrast MRI approaches. NMR Biomed. 2012;25(2):218–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Valable S, Lemasson B, Farion R, Beaumont M, Segebarth C, Remy C, et al. Assessment of blood volume, vessel size, and the expression of angiogenic factors in two rat glioma models: a longitudinal in vivo and ex vivo study. NMR Biomed. 2008;21(10):1043–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Douma K, Oostendorp M, Slaaf DW, Post MJ, Backes WH, van Zandvoort MA. Evaluation of magnetic resonance vessel size imaging by two-photon laser scanning microscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63(4):930–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Persigehl T, Ring J, Budny T, Hahnenkamp A, Stoeppeler S, Schwartz LH, et al. Vessel size imaging (VSI) by robust magnetic resonance (MR) relaxometry MR-VSI of solid tumours in correlation with immunohistology and intravital microscopy. Mol Imaging. 2013;12(7):1–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kim E, Cebulla J, Ward BD, Rhie K, Zhang J, Pathak AP. Assessing breast cancer angiogenesis in vivo: which susceptibility contrast MRI biomarkers are relevant? Magn Reson Med. 2013;70(4):1106–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Burrell JS, Bradley RS, Walker-Samuel S, Jamin Y, Baker LC, Boult JK, et al. MRI measurements of vessel caliber in tumour xenografts: comparison with vascular corrosion casting. Microvasc Res. 2012;84(3):323–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Lemasson B, Christen T, Tizon X, Farion R, Fondraz N, Provent P, et al. Assessment of multiparametric MRI in a human glioma model to monitor cytotoxic and anti-angiogenic drug effects. NMR Biomed. 2011;24(5):473–82.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Sampath D, Oeh J, Wyatt SK, Cao TC, Koeppen H, Eastham-Anderson J, et al. Multimodal microvascular imaging reveals that selective inhibition of class I PI3K is sufficient to induce an antivascular response. Neoplasia. 2013;15(7):694–711.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Walker-Samuel S, Boult JK, McPhail LD, Box G, Eccles SA, Robinson SP. Non-invasive in vivo imaging of vessel calibre in orthotopic prostate tumour xenografts. Int J Cancer. 2012;130:1284–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Gahramanov S, Muldoon LL, Varallyay CG, Li X, Kraemer DF, Fu R, et al. Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemo- and radiation therapy: diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteriol and correlation with survival. Radiology. 2013;266(3):842–52.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Gambarota G, van Laarhoven HW, Philippens M, Lok J, van der Kogel A, Punt CJ, et al. Assessment of absolute blood volume in carcinoma by USPIO contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(3):279–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Law M, Yang S, Wang H, Babb JS, Johnson G, Cha S, et al. Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(10):1989–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Barajas RF, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;253(2):486–96.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, Peccerelli N, Chheang S, Gruber ML, et al. Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;247(2):490–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. O'Connor JP, Jayson GC. Do imaging biomarkers relate to outcome in patients treated with VEGF inhibitors? Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(24):6588–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Desar IM, ter Voert EG, Hambrock T, van Asten JJ, van Spronsen DJ, Mulders PF, et al. Functional MRI techniques demonstrate early vascular changes in renal cell cancer patients treated with sunitinib: a pilot study. Cancer Imaging. 2011;11(1):259–65.

    PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Ah-See M-LW, Makris A, Taylor NJ, Harrison M, Richman PI, Burcombe RJ, et al. Early changes in functional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging predict for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6580–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ, Collins DJ, D'Arcy JA, Stirling JJ, et al. Antivascular effects of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: an in vivo human study using susceptibility and relaxivity dynamic MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(3):721–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. de Graaf RA. In vivo NMR spectroscopy. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Provencher SW. Estimation of metabolite concentrations from localized NMR spectra. Magn Reson Med. 1993;30(6):672–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Provencher SW. Automatic quantitation of localized in vivo 1H spectra with LCModel. NMR Biomed. 2001;14(4):260–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. jMRUI. MRUI: Magnetic Resonance User Interface. http://www.mrui.uab.es/mrui/. Accessed 3 January 2015.

  123. Vanhamme L, van den Boogaart A, Van Huffel S. Improved method for accurate and efficient quantification of MRS data with use of prior knowledge. J Magn Reson. 1997;129(1):35–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Naressi A, Couturier C, Devos JM, Janssen M, Mangeat C, de Beer R, et al. Java-based graphical user interface for the MRUI quantitation package. MAGMA. 2001;12(2-3):141–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Howe FA, Barton SJ, Cudlip SA, Stubbs M, Saunders DE, Murphy M, et al. Metabolic profiles of human brain tumors using quantitative in vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49(2):223–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Nelson SJ, Graves E, Pirzkall A, Li X, Chan AA, Vigneron DB, et al. In vivo molecular imaging for planning radiation therapy of gliomas: an application of 1H MRSI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(4):464–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Begley JK, Redpath TW, Bolan PJ, Gilbert FJ. In vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer: a review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(2):207.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opinion Urol. 2008;18(1):71–7.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Griffin JL, Shockcor JP. Metabolic profiles of cancer cells. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(7):551–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Boren J, Brindle KM. Apoptosis-induced mitochondrial dysfunction causes cytoplasmic lipid droplet formation. Cell Death Differ. 2012;19(9):1561–70.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Glaholm J, Leach MO, Collins DJ, Mansi J, Sharp JC, Madden A, et al. In-vivo 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy for monitoring treatment response in breast cancer. Lancet. 1989;1(8650):1326–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Negendank W. Studies of human tumors by MRS: a review. NMR Biomed. 1992;5(5):303–24.

  134. Arias-Mendoza F, Payne GS, Zakian K, Stubbs M, O'Connor OA, Mojahed H, et al. Noninvasive phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging predicts outcome to first-line chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(9):1122–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Moon RB, Richards JH. Determination of intracellular pH by 31P magnetic resonance. J Biol Chem. 1973;248(20):7276–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Graham RA, Taylor AH, Brown TR. A method for calculating the distribution of pH in tissues and a new source of pH error from the 31P-NMR spectrum. Am J Physiol. 1994;266(2 Pt 2):R638–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Stubbs M, McSheehy PM, Griffiths JR, Bashford CL. Causes and consequences of tumour acidity and implications for treatment. Mol Med Today. 2000;6(1):15–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Sonveaux P, Végran F, Schroeder T, Wergin MC, Verrax J, Rabbani ZN, et al. Targeting lactate-fueled respiration selectively kills hypoxic tumor cells in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(12):3930–42.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. McSheehy PM, Griffiths JR. 19F MRS studies of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. a review. NMR Biomed. 1989;2(4):133–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Mason RP, Rodbumrung W, Antich PP. Hexafluorobenzene: a sensitive 19F NMR indicator of tumor oxygenation. NMR Biomed. 1996;9(3):125–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Lee CP, Payne GS, Oregioni A, Ruddle R, Tan S, Raynaud FI, et al. A phase I study of the nitroimidazole hypoxia marker SR4554 using 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(11):1860–8.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Larson PE, Harzstark AL, Ferrone M, et al. Metabolic imaging of patients with prostate cancer using hyperpolarized 000[1-13C] pyruvate. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(198):198ra108.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge CRUK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre in association with MRC and Department of Health C1060/A10334, and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedicine Research Centre and the Clinical Research Facility in Imaging. We also acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the Cancer Research Network (NCRN), and acknowledge in particular Mrs Sharon Giles, Dr Elizabeth O’Flynn, Dr Matthew Orton, Dr Christina Messiou, Dr Simon Robinson and Dr Franklyn Howe for the figures used in this article.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRUK Imaging Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK

    J. M. Winfield, G. S. Payne & N. M. deSouza

  2. MRI Unit, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK

    J. M. Winfield

Authors
  1. J. M. Winfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. S. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. M. deSouza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. M. Winfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winfield, J.M., Payne, G.S. & deSouza, N.M. Functional MRI and CT biomarkers in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 562–578 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2979-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2979-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation