Oncologie

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 178–186 | Cite as

Biomarqueurs en imagerie pour l’évaluation des nouvelles thérapies anticancéreuses

  • C.A. Cuenod
  • L. Fournier
  • D. Balvay
  • R. Thiam
  • S. Oudard
Synthèse / Review Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 58 Downloads

Résumé

L’évaluation des traitements est un enjeu de plus en plus important en cancérologie, qu’il s’agisse de l’évaluation des nouveaux traitements ou du monitoring individuel d’un patient. Les critères utilisés actuellement sont morphologiques, basés sur l’évolution de la tailledeslésions, telsque les critères RECIST. Mais les variations de tailles sont retardées, et avec les nouveaux traitements ciblés tels que les antiangiogéniques, elles sont faibles. Cela implique l’utilisation de larges cohortes pour mettre en évidence l’efficacité d’un traitement et rend difficile le monitoring individuel. L’utilisation des techniques d’imagerie fonctionnelle, en scanner, en IRM, en échographie ou en tomographie par émission de positrons (TEP), apporte de nouveaux espoirs. Les paramètres obtenus grâce à ces techniques(perfusion, perméabilité, diffusion, métabolisme, composition, élasticité) sont modifiés précocement par les traitements. Ces paramètres fonctionnels pourraient devenir des biomarqueurs pour l’évaluation et le suivi des traitements. Les études ayant démontré leur utilité sont préliminaires, il reste à standardiser les techniques d’acquisition et à évaluer à plus large échelle, en fonction des situations cliniques, quels sont les paramètres fonctionnels les plus adaptés.

Mots clés

Cancer RECIST Imagerie fonctionnelle Perfusion Perméabilité Diffusion Biomarqueurs 

Biomarkers in imaging for evaluation of new cancer therapies

Abstract

Evaluation of treatments is becoming a critical issue in oncology for the development of new drogues and for individual treatment monitoring. The criteria commonly used for these evaluations are based on the evolution of the size of the lesions; The RECIST criteria being the more commonly used. Tumor shrinking, however, is a late event and is moderate with the new targeted drugs such as the antiangiogenic molecules. Therefore, the evaluation of new drugs requires large cohorts and the individual monitoring is not optimal. The use of functional imaging techniques such as MRI, CT, US or positron emission tomography (PET) is shading new hopes in the field, because the functional parameters given by these new techniques (perfusion, permeability, diffusion, metabolism, chemical composition or elasticity) are altered early under therapy. These functional parameters may become useful biomarkers for the development of the new drugs and for individual monitoring. They need, however, to be evaluated on larger studies and to be standardized.

Keywords

Cancer RECIST Functional imaging Perfusion Permeability Diffusion Biomarkers DCE-imaging 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Ahmad T, Eisen T (2004) Kinase inhibition with BAY 43-9006 in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10: 6388S–92SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batist G, Patenaude F, Champagne P, et al. (2002) Neovastat (AE-941) in refractory renal cell carcinoma patients: report of a phase II trial with two dose levels. Ann Oncol 13: 1259–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baudelet C, Cron GO, Gallez B (2006) Determination of the maturity and functionality of tumor vasculature by MRI: correlation between BOLD-MRI and DCE-MRI using P792 in experimental fibrosarcoma tumors. Magn Reson Med 56: 1041–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biomarkers definitions working group (2001) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69: 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang YC, Huang CS, Liu YJ, et al. (2004) Angiogenic response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy evaluated with parametric histogram from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Phys Med Biol 49: 3593–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claus FG, Hricak H, Hattery RR (2004) Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. Radiographics 24(1): S167–S80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Bazelaire C, Rofsky NM, Duhamel G, et al. (2005) Arterial spin labeling blood flow magnetic resonance imaging for the characterization of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (1). Acad Radiol 12: 347–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dzik-Jurasz AS, Murphy PS, George M, et al. (2002) Human rectal adenocarcinoma: demonstration of 1H-MR spectra in vivo at 1.5 T. Magn Reson Med 47: 809–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45: 228–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrara KW, Merritt CR, Burns PN, et al. (2000) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with US: imaging, Doppler, and contrast agents. Acad Radiol 7: 824–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fournier LS, Novikov VY, Lucidi V, et al. MRI Monitoring for COX-2 inhibition of angiogenesis in a breast cancer model. In: radiology. Series MRI monitoring for COX-2 inhibition of angiogenesis in a breast cancer model. accepted under revisionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuchsjager M, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, et al. (2009) The role of MRI and MRSI in diagnosis, treatment selection, and posttreatment follow-up for prostate cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 7: 193–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gross S, Gilead A, Scherz A, et al. (2003) Monitoring photodynamic therapy of solid tumors online by BOLD-contrast MRI. Nat Med 9: 1327–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. (1999) Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 523–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang L, Zhao D, Constantinescu A, Mason RP (2004) Comparison of BOLD contrast and Gd-DTPA dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in rat prostate tumor. Magn Reson Med 51: 953–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YR, Yudina A, Figueiredo J, et al. (2005) Detection of early antiangiogenic effects in human colon adenocarcinoma xenografts: in vivo changes of tumor blood volume in response to experimental VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Cancer Res 65: 9253–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, et al. (1996) Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 198: 795–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lassau N, Chami L, Benatsou B, et al. (2007) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) with quantification of tumor perfusion: a new diagnostic tool to evaluate the early effects of antiangiogenic treatment. Eur Radiol 17(Suppl 6): F89–F98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lassau N, Koscielny S, Opolon P, et al. (2001) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound for the quantification of angiogenesis in vivo. Invest Radiol 36: 50–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Bihan D (1995) Molecular diffusion, tissue microdynamics and microstructure. NMR Biomed 8: 375–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee KC, Bradley DA, Hussain M, et al. (2007) A feasibility study evaluating the functional diffusion map as a predictive imaging biomarker for detection of treatment response in a patient with metastatic prostate cancer to the bone. Neoplasia 9: 1003–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manton DJ, Chaturvedi A, Hubbard A, et al. (2006) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: early response prediction with quantitative MR imaging and spectroscopy. Br J Cancer 94: 427–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47: 207–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Lawrence TS, et al. (2005) Functional diffusion map: a noninvasive MRI biomarker for early stratification of clinical brain tumor response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 5524–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morse DL, Galons JP, Payne CM, et al. (2007) MRI-measured water mobility increases in response to chemotherapy via multiple cell-death mechanisms. NMR Biomed 20: 602–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Motzer RJ, Michaelson MD, Redman BG, et al. (2006) Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24: 16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mueller-Lisse UG, Swanson MG, Vigneron DB, et al. (2001) Time-dependent effects of hormone-deprivation therapy on prostate metabolism as detected by combined magnetic resonance imaging and 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 46: 49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Padhani AR (2003) MRI for assessing antivascular cancer treatments. Br J Radiol 76(1): S60–S80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Padhani AR, Krohn KA, Lewis JS, Alber M (2007) Imaging oxygenation of human tumors. Eur Radiol 17: 861–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park JO, Lee SI, Song SY, et al. (2003) Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol 33: 533–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, et al. (2005) MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184: 1774–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pradel C, Siauve N, Bruneteau G, et al. (2003) Reduced capillary perfusion and permeability in human tumor xenografts treated with the VEGF signalling inhibitor ZD4190: an in vivo assessment using dynamic MR imaging and macromolecular contrast media. Magn Reson Imaging 21: 845–51 Pradel (17)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rahmouni A, Luciani A, Itti E (2005) MRI and PET in monitoring response in lymphoma. Cancer Imaging 5: 106–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rehman S, Jayson GC (2005) Molecular imaging of antiangiogenic agents. Oncologist 10: 92–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ross BD, Moffat BA, Lawrence TS, et al. (2003) Evaluation of cancer therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Mol Cancer Ther 2: 581–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shah N, Sattar A, Benanti M, et al. (2006) Magnetic resonance spectroscopy as an imaging tool for cancer: a review of the literature. J Am Osteopath Assoc 106: 23–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stephen RM, Gillies RJ (2007) Promise and progress for functional and molecular imaging of response to targeted therapies. Pharm Res 24: 1172–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tatum JL, Hoffman JM (2000) Role of imaging in clinical trials of antiangiogenesis therapy in oncology. Acad Radiol 7: 798–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. (2000) 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 92: 205–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Chen F, et al. (2005) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in monitoring the effect of a vascular targeting agent on rhabdomyosarcoma in rats. Radiology 234: 756–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG, et al. (2004) Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol 11: 1355–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, et al. (2002) Assessment of tumor response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria. Br J Radiol 75: 903–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vaidya SJ, Payne GS, Leach MO, Pinkerton CR, et al. (2003) Potential role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in assessment of tumor response in childhood cancer. Eur J Cancer 39: 728–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Laarhoven HW, Klomp DW, Rijpkema M, et al. (2007) Prediction of chemotherapeutic response of colorectal liver metastases with dynamic gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced MRI and localized 19F MRS pharmacokinetic studies of 5-fluoro-uracil. NMR Biomed 20: 128–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    WHO (1979) WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization 45 pGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yang JC, Haworth L, Sherry RM, et al. (2003) A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 427–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhu AX, Holalkere NS, Muzikansky A, et al. (2008) Early antiangiogenic activity of bevacizumab evaluated by computed tomography perfusion scan in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncologist 13: 120–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • C.A. Cuenod
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Fournier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • D. Balvay
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Thiam
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Oudard
    • 3
  1. 1.Service de radiologiehôpital européen Georges-PompidouParis cedex 15 ParisFrance
  2. 2.LRI Inserm U970 Parcc HEGPUniversité Paris-DescartesParisFrance
  3. 3.Service de cancérologiehôpital européen Georges-PompidouParisFrance

Personalised recommendations