Skip to main content

Role of Imaging in Cancer Treatment

  • Chapter
  • 630 Accesses

Part of the book series: Cancer Drug Discovery and Development ((CDD&D))

Abstract

Cancer therapy and cancer imaging are scientific and clinical companions. Most cancers are initially detected by an imaging technique, either through the routine screening of at-risk populations or by the evaluation of patients presenting with symptoms. Imaging the human body began as part of routine clinical care with the development of X-ray imaging by Roentgen. While X-rays still play an important role in cancer evaluation, the imaging technologies have expanded greatly over the past 30 years. Computerized tomographic (CT) imaging has added immeasurably to the clinician’s ability to find, measure, and monitor cancers. The algorithms originally developed by Hounsfield to produce tomographic images with X-rays have also been extended to nuclear medicine for use with positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). The development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has provided high levels of contrast with superb resolution in many areas of the body. These techniques have been complemented by ultrasound (US) imaging and more recently by the introduction of new optical approaches. Each technique has its strengths and limitations, leading clinicians to compare the results and data from the various approaches to determine the optimal imaging modalities to use for a given indication. Clinical presentation often leads a physician to obtain a series of images as an evaluation progresses or changes. For example, one might initially detect a suspicious lesion with a simple chest X-ray, more completely evaluate its characteristics and extent with a CT scan, and use PET to help stage the tumor within the thorax and abdomen or MRI to detect lesions within the brain. In fact, new devices are beginning to combine modalities, such as PET and CT, to take advantage of the strengths of each approach (Fig. 1)

.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Eisner EJ, Zook EG, Goodman N, Macario E. Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of women ages 65 and older on mammography screening and Medicare: Results of a national survey. Women Health 2002;36:1–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harrison RV, Janz NK, Wolfe RA, Tedeschi PJ, Huang X, McMahon LF Jr. 5-Year mammography rates and associated factors for older women. Cancer 2003;97:1147–1155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2005;293:1245–1256.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, Manoliu RA, Kok T, Peterse H, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Muller SH, Meijer S, Oosterwijk JC, Beex LV, Tollenaar RA, de Koning HJ, Rutgers EJ, Klijn JG. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427–437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bach PB, Kelley MJ, Tate RC, McCrory DC. Screening for lung cancer: A review of the current literature. Chest 2003;123:72S–82S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gohagan JK, Marcus PM, Fagerstrom RM, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Prorok PC, Ascher S, Bailey W, Brewer B, Church T, Engelhard D, Ford M, Fouad M, Freedman M, Gelmann E, Gierada D, Hocking W, Inampudi S, Irons B, Johnson CC, Jones A, Kucera G, Kvale P, Lappe K, Manor W, Moore A, Nath H, Neff S, Oken M, Plunkett M, Price H, Reding D, Riley T, Schwartz M, Spizarny D, Yoffie R, Zylak C. Final results of the Lung Screening Study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005;47:9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pickhardt PJ, Choi Jr, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191–2200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG, Bond JH, Ansel H, Waye JD, Hall D, Hamlin JA, Schapiro M, O’Brien MJ, Sternberg SS, Gottlieb LS. A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1766–1772.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernandez FG, Drebin JA, Linehan DC, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Strasberg SM. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET). Ann Surg 2004;240:438–447; discussion 447–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, Deserno WM, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa CH, de la Rosette J, Weissleder R. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491–2499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kato H, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M, Takita J, Kimura H, Faried A, Sohda M, Fukai Y, Masuda N, Fukuchi M, Manda R, Ojima H, Tsukada K, Kuwano H, Oriuchi, N, Endo K. The incremental effect of positron emission tomography on diagnostic accuracy in the initial staging of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:148–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Syed R, Bomanji JB, Nagabhushan N, Hughes S, Kayani I, Groves A, Gacinovic S, Hydes N, Visvikis D, Copland C, Ell PJ. Impact of combined (18)F-FDG PET/CT in head and neck tumours. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1046–1050.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, vanOosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG. 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. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Schlag P, Hohenberger P, Mohler M, Oberdorfer F, van Kaick G. Fluorine-18-fluorouracil to predict therapy response in liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998;39:1197–1202.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Linden HM, Stekhova S, Link JM, Gralow Jr, Livingston RB, Ellis GK, Peterson LM, Schubert EK, Petra KA, Krohn KA, Mankoff DA. HER2 expression and uptake of 18F-fluoroestradiol predict response of breast cancer to hormonal therapy. J Nucl Med 2004;45(Suppl):85–86p.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jager PL, Gietema JA, van der Graaf WT. Imatinib mesylate for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: Best monitored with FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25:433–438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Langleben DD, Segall GM. PET in differentiation of recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1861–1867.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1S–93S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Grosu A-L, Piert M, Molls M. Experience of positron emission tomography for target localisation in radiation oncology. Br J Radiol 2005;28(Suppl):18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chapman JD, Bradley JD, Eary JF, Haubner R, Larson SM, Michalski JM, Okunieff PG, Strauss HW, Ung YC, Welch MJ. Molecular (functional) imaging for radiotherapy applications: An RTOG symposium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:294–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, Reiner B, Burger C, Davis JB, Lutolf UM, Steinert HC, Von Schulthess GK. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): A feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:853–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rahn AN, Baum RP, Adamietz IA, Adams S, Sengupta S, Mose S, Bormeth SB, Hor G, Bottcher HD. [Value of 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in radiotherapy planning of headneck tumors]. Strahlenther Onkol 1998;174:358–364.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nishioka T, Shiga T, Shirato H, Tsukamoto E, Tsuchiya K, Kato T, Ohmori K, Yamazaki A, Aoyama H, Hashimoto S, Chang TC, Miyasaka K. Image fusion between 18FDG-PET and MRI/CT for radiotherapy planning of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:1051–1057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paulino AC, Koshy M, Howell R, Schuster D, Davis LW. Comparison of CT-and FDG-PET-defined gross tumor volume in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:1385–1392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, Gregoire V. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 2004;233:93–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Saleem A, Aboagye EO, Price PM. In vivo monitoring of drugs using radiotracer techniques. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2000;41:21–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Saleem A. Potential of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology and radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2005;28(Suppl):6–16.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kelloff GJ, Sigman CC. New science-based endpoints to accelerate oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:491–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wells P, Aboagye E, Gunn RN, Osman S, Boddy AV, Taylor GA, Rafi I, Hughes AN, Calvert AH, Price PM, Newell DR. 2-[11C]Thymidine positron emission tomography as an indicator of thymidylate synthase inhibition in patients treated with AG337. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:675–682.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson HL, Yap JT, Miller MP, Robbins A, Jones T, Price PM. Assessment of pharmacodynamic vascular response in a phase I trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2823–2830.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Harte RJ, Matthews JC, O’Reilly SM, Tilsley DW, Osman S, Brown G, Luthra SJ, Brady, F, Jones T, Price PM. Tumor, normal tissue, and plasma pharmacokinetic studies of fluorouracil biomodulation with N-phosphonacetyl-L-aspartate, folinic acid, and interferon alfa. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1580–1588.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Saleem A, Yap J, Osman S, Brady F, Suttle B, Lucas SV, Jones T, Price PM, Aboagye EO. Modulation of fluorouracil tissue pharmacokinetics by eniluracil: In-vivo imaging of drug action. Lancet 2000;355:2125–2131.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mitsuki S, Diksic M, Conway T, Yamamoto YL, Villemure JG, Feindel W. Pharmacokinetics of 11-Clabelled BCNU and SarCNU in gliomas studied by PET. J Neurooncol 1991;10:47–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tyler JL, Yamamoto YL, Diksic M, Theron J, Villemure JG, Worthington C, Evans AC, Feindel W. Pharmacokinetics of superselective intra-arterial and intravenous [11C]BCNU evaluated by PET. J Nucl Med 1986;27:775–780.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Saleem A, Harte RJ, Matthews JC, Osman S, Brady F, Luthra SK, Brown GD, Bleehen N, Connors T, Jones T, Price PM, Aboagye EO. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of N-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]acridine-4-carboxamide in patients by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1421–1429.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Findlay MP, Leach MO, Cunningham D, Collins DJ, Payne GS, Glaholm J, Mansi JL, McCready VR. The non-invasive monitoring of low dose, infusional 5-fluorouracil and its modulation by interferonalpha using in vivo 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy in patients with colorectal cancer: A pilot study. Ann Oncol 1993;4:597–602.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamm YJ, Heerschap A, van den Bergh EJ, Wagener DJ. 19F-magnetic resonance spectroscopy in patients with liver metastases of colorectal cancer treated with 5-fluorouracil. Anticancer Drugs 2004;15:229–233.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Presant CA, Wolf W, Waluch V, Wiseman CL, Weitz I, Shani J. Enhancement of fluorouracil uptake in human colorectal and gastric cancers by interferon or by high-dose methotrexate: An in vivo human study using noninvasive (19)F-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:255–261.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gilbert J, Henske P, Singh A. Rebuilding big pharma’s business model. IN VIVO: Bus Med Rep 2003;17:73.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lesko LJ, Woodcock J. Translation of pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics: A regulatory perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:763–769.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Reichert JM. Trends in development and approval times for new therapeutics in the United States. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:695–702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shields, A.F., Price, P. (2007). Role of Imaging in Cancer Treatment. In: Shields, A.F., Price, P. (eds) In Vivo Imaging of Cancer Therapy. Cancer Drug Discovery and Development. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-341-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-341-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-633-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-341-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics