Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Mar;14(3):169-186.
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162. Epub 2016 Oct 11.

Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies

James P B O'Connor  1 Eric O Aboagye  2 Judith E Adams  3 Hugo J W L Aerts  4 Sally F Barrington  5 Ambros J Beer  6 Ronald Boellaard  7 Sarah E Bohndiek  8 Michael Brady  9 Gina Brown  10 David L Buckley  11 Thomas L Chenevert  12 Laurence P Clarke  13 Sandra Collette  14 Gary J Cook  5 Nandita M deSouza  15 John C Dickson  16 Caroline Dive  17 Jeffrey L Evelhoch  18 Corinne Faivre-Finn  19 Ferdia A Gallagher  8 Fiona J Gilbert  8 Robert J Gillies  20 Vicky Goh  5 John R Griffiths  8 Ashley M Groves  16 Steve Halligan  16 Adrian L Harris  9 David J Hawkes  16 Otto S Hoekstra  21 Erich P Huang  22 Brian F Hutton  16 Edward F Jackson  23 Gordon C Jayson  24 Andrew Jones  25 Dow-Mu Koh  15 Denis Lacombe  26 Philippe Lambin  27 Nathalie Lassau  28 Martin O Leach  15 Ting-Yim Lee  29 Edward L Leen  2 Jason S Lewis  30 Yan Liu  26 Mark F Lythgoe  31 Prakash Manoharan  1 Ross J Maxwell  32 Kenneth A Miles  16 Bruno Morgan  33 Steve Morris  34 Tony Ng  5 Anwar R Padhani  35 Geoff J M Parker  1 Mike Partridge  9 Arvind P Pathak  36 Andrew C Peet  37 Shonit Punwani  16 Andrew R Reynolds  38 Simon P Robinson  15 Lalitha K Shankar  13 Ricky A Sharma  16 Dmitry Soloviev  8 Sigrid Stroobants  39 Daniel C Sullivan  40 Stuart A Taylor  16 Paul S Tofts  41 Gillian M Tozer  42 Marcel van Herk  19 Simon Walker-Samuel  31 James Wason  43 Kaye J Williams  1 Paul Workman  44 Thomas E Yankeelov  45 Kevin M Brindle  8 Lisa M McShane  22 Alan Jackson  1 John C Waterton  1
Affiliations
Review

Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies

James P B O'Connor et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests statement

J.P.B.O’C. (CRUK, Eli Lilly), H.J.W.L.A. (NIH), S.F.B. (AstraZeneca), R.B. (Philips), S.B. (CRUK), M.B. (CRUK, EPSRC), K.M.B. (CRUK, EPSRC, GE Healthcare), T.L.C. (NIH), S.C. (European Union FP7), G.J.C. (Alliance Medical, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, CRUK, GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare), N.M.dS. (CRUK, European Union FP7, NIHR), C.D. (CRUK), C.F-F. (AstraZeneca, Merck), F.A.G. (CRUK, GE, GSK), F.J.G. (CRUK, EPSRC), R.J.G. (NIH), V.G. (GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare), A.M.G. (GSK), A.L.H. (CRUK), D.J.H. (CRUK, EPSRC, Elekta, Philips, Truebeam), B.F.H. (GE Healthcare, Mediso, Siemens Healthcare), A.J. (CRUK, EPSRC), G.C.J. (AstraZeneca, Novartis, Oxigene, Roche), N.L. (Bracco), M.L. (CRUK, EPSRC), E.L.L. (GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Philips), J.S.L. (Eli Lilly, MabVAx Inc, NIH, The Curadel Companies), Y.L. (European Union FP7), T.N. (CRUK, EPSRC), A.R.P. (Acuitas Medical, Siemens Healthcare), G.J.M.P. (CRUK, EPSRC), M.P. (CRUK), A.C.P. (NIHR), R.A.S. (CRUK, HEFCE, MRC, Sirtex Technology), S.A.T. (NIHR), K.J.W. (Eli Lilly), P.W. (CRUK) and T.E.Y. (NIH) receive grants and financial support from the indicated sources. E.A. (Lightpoint Medical), H.J.W.L.A. (Genospace LLC), R.J.G. (HealthMyne Inc), T-Y.L. (GE Healthcare), K.A.M. (Imaging Endpoints), G.J.M.P. (GSK), R.A.S. (Affidea, BTG plc, Cancer Research Technology, Sirtex Medical, Vertex), D.C.S. (RSNA), S.A.T. (Robarts), M.vH. (Aquilab), P.W. (Astex Pharmaceuticals, Nextechinvest, Nuevolution) have acted as consultants for the indicated organizations. H.J.W.L.A. (Genospace LLC), J.L.E. (Merck & Co), R.J.G. (HealthMyne Inc), D.J.H. (IXICO PLC, visionRT), J.S.L. (pHLIP Inc), K.A.M. (Feedback PLC), G.J.M.P. (Bioxydyn Ltd), J.C.W. (Alderley Imaging Ltd, AstraZeneca), P.W. (Chroma Therapeutics, Nextechinvest, Piramed Pharma) hold stock and/or directorship from the indicated institutions. All other authors declare no competing interests. No authors declare relevant honoraria for speaking or patents.

Figures

None
TNM staging of a patient with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (T2 N0 M1) identified by a | T2 lung tumour on CT, b | no evidence of local nodal involvement on PET–CT, and c | brain metastases on MRI.
None
a | A patient with cervical cancer (T3b N0 M0) had a bulky primary tumour at baseline, but b | showed a complete response and reconstitution of the cervix following therapy with chemoradiation.
None
In a patient with breast cancer, scintigraphy shows a | diastole and b | systole maps of c | photon count. d | Maps of phase and e | stroke volume are also shown. In this patient, the LVEF was calculated as 66% (within the normal range). Treatment with doxorubicin was initiated, followed by trastuzumab.
None
A patient with a metastatic neuroendocrine tumour undergoing a diagnostic 68Ga-dotatate PET–CT has a | multiple disease sites on fused coronal images, and b | maximum intensity projection. The patient then received therapeutic 177Lu-dotatate, which enables demonstration of drug uptake at the disease sites, confirmed by SPECT– CT examination on c | fused coronal images and d | maximum intensity projection.
None
Clinical trial of the PI3K inhibitor pictilisib shows >30% reduction in the 18F-FDG-PET SUVmax in a patient with peri-hepatic disease from primary ovarian cancer before (left) and after (right) therapy. Adapted from Clin. Cancer Res., 2015, 21/1, Sarker, D. et al. First-in-human phase I study of pictilisib (GDC0941), a potent pan–class I phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors, with permission from AACR.
None
Example DCE–MRI data from patients with stage IV colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab. a | Double baseline scanning enables calculation of IB precision; here, Ktrans has been calculated in a liver metastasis on two scan visits performed 24 h apart. b | Serial mapping of Ktrans in the same tumour reveals pharmacodynamic (PD) changes within 4 h of initiating therapy that were maintained to day 12. c | The IB ΔKtrans is shown for tumours from six patients.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the imaging biomarker roadmap.
Imaging biomarkers must cross translational gap 1 to become robust medical research tools, and translational gap 2 to be integrated into routine patient care. This goal is achieved through three parallel tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological and clinical validation, and cost effectiveness.
Figure 2
Figure 2. The imaging biomarker roadmap.
A detailed schematic roadmap is depicted. The imaging biomarker (IB) roadmap differs from those described for biospecimen-derived biomarkers. For imaging, the technical and biological/clinical validation occur in parallel rather than sequentially. Of note, essential technical validation occurs late in the roadmap in many cases (such as full multicentre and multivendor reproducibility). Definitive clinical validation studies (IB measured against outcome) are deferred until technical validation is adequate for large trials. In the absence of definitive outcome studies, early biological validation can rely on a platform of very diverse graded evidence linking the IB to the underlying pathophysiology. Cost-effectiveness impacts on the roadmap at every stage, owing to the equipment and personnel costs of performing imaging studies. Technical validation and cost-effectiveness are important for IBs after crossing the translational gaps because hardware and software updates occur frequently. Therefore, technical performance and economic viability must be re-evaluated continuously. SOP, standard operating procedure. Image reproduced from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/imaging_biomarker_roadmap_for_cancer_studies.pdf.

Comment in

References

    1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89–95. - PubMed
    1. Food and Drug Administration & National Institutes of Health. BEST (Biomarkers, Endpoints, and other tools) resource. NCBI; [accessed 4 February 2016]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791. - PubMed
    1. Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ., Jr Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:347–366. - PubMed
    1. 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. National Academy of Sciences; 2012. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding