Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Response to Treatment: The Role of Imaging

  • Chapter
Imaging Tumor Response to Therapy

Abstract

Cancer is a major human health problem, both in developing and developed countries. While screening and improved therapies have yielded relevant successes for some forms of cancer—resulting in a 1% annual decline in mortality from all cancers in the USA since 1990—each year, about 7 million people worldwide and 600,000 in the USA continue to die from this disease [1].

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sullivan DC, Gatsonis C (2011) Response to treatment series: part 1 and introduction, measuring tumor response challenges in the era of molecular medicine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:15–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sardanelli F, Di Leo G (2009) Biostatistics for Radiologists. Springer-Verlag, Milan, pp 142–144, 128–129

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization (1979) WHO handbook of reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  4. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sardanelli F (2012) Evidence-based radiology and its relation to quality. In: Abujudeh HH, Bruno MA (eds) Quality and safety in radiology. Oxford University Press, New York, Chapter 27

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ et al (2010) Evidence-based radiology: why and how? Eur Radiol 20:1–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50 Suppl 1:122S–150S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nishino M, Jackman DM, Hatabu H et al (2010) New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with original RECIST and impact on assessment of tumor response to targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W221–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM et al; EASL Panel of Experts on HCC (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma: conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference — European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 35:421–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S et al (2004) CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1619–1628

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30:52–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kudo M, Kubo S, Takayasu K et al; Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (2010) Response Evaluation Criteria in Cancer of the Liver (RECICL) proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (2009 Revised Version). Hepatol Res 40:686–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Apfaltrer P, Meyer M, Meier C et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Is Iodine-related attenuation a potential indicator of tumor response? Invest Radiol 47:65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD (2010) Revised RECIST guideline version 1.1: What oncologists want to know and what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:281–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Crabb SJ, Patsios D, Sauerbrei E et al (2009) Tumor cavitation: impact on objective response evaluation in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:404–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV (2009) Body perfusion CT: technique, clinical applications, and advances. Radiol Clin North Am 47:161–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu GY, Ghimire P (2009) Perfusion computed tomography in colorectal cancer: protocols, clinical applications and emerging trends. World J Gastroenterol 15:3228–3231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Okada M, Kim T, Murakami T (2011) Hepatocellular nodules in liver cirrhosis: state of the art CT evaluation (perfusion CT/volume helical shuttle scan/dual-energy CT, etc.). Abdom Imaging 36:273–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parodi RC, Sardanelli F, Renzetti P et al (2002) Growing Region Segmentation Software (GRES) for quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of multiple sclerosis: intra-and interobserver agreement variability: a comparison with manual contouring method. Eur Radiol 12:866–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parodi RC, Levrero F, Sormani MP et al (2008) Supervised automatic procedure to identify new lesions in brain MR longitudinal studies of patients with multiple sclerosis. Radiol Med 113:300–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Monsky WL, Kim I, Loh S et al (2010) Semiautomated segmentation for volumetric analysis of intratumoral ethiodol uptake and subsequent tumor necrosis after chemoembolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1220–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vignati A, Giannini V, De Luca M et al (2011) Performance of a fully automatic lesion detection system for breast DCE-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:1341–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuhl CK (2007) Current status of breast MR imaging. I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:672–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrastenhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sardanelli F, Serafin Z, Stoker J (2012) Evidence-based radiology 2001-2010: The authorship. Abstract, ECR 2012

    Google Scholar 

  28. Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H et al (2010) Identification of residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: diffusion-weighted imaging — comparison with contrastenhanced MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 254:357–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Afaq A, Andreou A, Koh DM (2010) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for tumour response assessment: why, when and how? Cancer Imaging 10 Spec no A:S179–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thoeny HC, Ross BD (2010) Predicting and monitoring cancer treatment response with diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:2–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lambregts DM, Maas M, Cappendijk VC et al (2011) Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: current evidence in oncology and potential role in colorectal cancer staging. Eur J Cancer 47:2107–2116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Glunde K, Jiang L, Moestue SA, Gribbestad IS (2011) MRS and MRSI guidance in molecular medicine: targeting and monitoring of choline and glucose metabolism in cancer. NMR Biomed 24:673–690

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. King AD, Yeung DK, Yu KH et al (2010) Pretreatment and early intratreatment prediction of clinicopathologic response of head and neck cancer to chemoradiotherapy using 1H-MRS. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:199–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Baek HM, Chen JH, Nalcioglu O, Su MY (2008) Proton MR spectroscopy for monitoring early treatment response of breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 19:1022–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Podo F, Sardanelli F, Iorio E et al (2007) Abnormal choline ohospholipid metabolism in breast and ovary cancer: Molecular bases for noninvasive imaging approaches. Curr Med Imaging Reviews 3:123–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Di Leo G et al (2009) In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of the breast using the total choline peak integral as a marker of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1608–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Esseridou A, Di Leo G, Sconfienza LM et al (2011) In vivo detection of choline in ovarian tumors using 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Invest Radiol 46:377–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Marcus Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus V, Cucu C et al (2009). Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: current standards and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 72:217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim CK, Choi D, Lim HK et al (2005) Therapeutic response assessment of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: utility of contrast-enhanced agent detection imaging. Eur J Radiol 56:66–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lamuraglia M, Escudier B, Chami L et al (2006) To predict progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic renal cancer treated with sorafenib: pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. Eur J Cancer 42:2472–2479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Chami L et al (2011) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: early evaluation of response to bevacizumab therapy at dynamic contrast-enhanced US with quantification-preliminary results. Radiology 258:291–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Williams R, Hudson JM, Lloyd BA et al (2011) Dynamic microbubble contrast-enhanced US to measure tumor response to targeted therapy: a proposed clinical protocol with results from renal cell carcinoma patients receiving antiangiogenic therapy. Radiology 260:581–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ell PJ (2006) The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 79:32–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Brown RS, Wahl RL (1993) Overexpression of Glut-1 glucose transporter in human breast cancer. An immunohistochemical study. Cancer 72:2979–2985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL (1993) Does FDG uptake measure proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake. J Nucl Med 34:414–419

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Brucher BL, Weber W, Bauer M et al (2001) Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 233:300–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E et al (2002) Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 20:379–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Blodgett TM, Ryan A (2009) Pitfalls and limitations. In: Blodgett TM (ed) Specialty imaging. PET/CT oncologic imaging with correlative diagnostic CT. Amirsys, Salt Lake City

    Google Scholar 

  49. Herrmann K, Krause BJ, Bundschuh RA et al (2009) Monitoring response to therapeutic interventions in patients with cancer. Semin Nucl Med 39:210–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ (2010) Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1408–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL (1993) Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 189:847–850

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ford EC, Kinahan PE, Hanlon L et al (2006) Tumor delineation using PET in head and neck cancers: threshold contouring and lesion volumes. Med Phys 33:4280–4288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010). FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lebwohl D, Kay A, Berg W et al (2009) Progression-free survival: gaining on overall survival as a gold standard and accelerating drug development. Cancer J 15:386–394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Sullivan DC, Gatsonis C (2011) Response to treatment series: part 1 and introduction, measuring tumor response-challenges in the era of molecular medicine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:15–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wolf W (2011) The unique potential for noninvasive imaging in modernizing drug development and in transforming therapeutics: PET/MRI/MRS. Pharm Res 28:490–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Sauter AW, Wehrl HF, Kolb A, Judenhofer MS, Pichler BJ (2010) Combined PET/MRI: one step further in multimodality imaging. Trends Mol Med 16:508–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Surgical Sciences, University of Milan, San Donato Milanese (Mi), Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli

  2. Department of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese (Mi), Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli, Anastasia Esseridou & Luca M. Sconfienza

  3. Department of Biomedical Science and Technology, University of Milan, Nuclear Medicine, San Paolo Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Angelo S. Del Sole

Authors
  1. Francesco Sardanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anastasia Esseridou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angelo S. Del Sole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca M. Sconfienza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Turin Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Candiolo (Turin), Italy

    Massimo Aglietta

  2. Radiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Candiolo (Turin), Italy

    Daniele Regge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sardanelli, F., Esseridou, A., Del Sole, A.S., Sconfienza, L.M. (2012). Response to Treatment: The Role of Imaging. In: Aglietta, M., Regge, D. (eds) Imaging Tumor Response to Therapy. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2613-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2613-1_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2612-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2613-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation