Search

As the immuno-oncology field continues the rapid growth witnessed over the past decade, optimising patient outcomes requires an evolution in the current response-assessment guidelines for phase 2 and 3 immunotherapy clinical trials and clinical care. Additionally, investigational tools-including image analysis of standard-of-care scans (such as CT, magnetic resonance, and PET) with analytics, such as radiomics, functional magnetic resonance agents, and novel molecular-imaging PET agents-offer promising advancements for assessment of immunotherapy. To document current challenges and opportunities and identify next steps in immunotherapy diagnostic imaging, the National Cancer Institute Clinical Imaging Steering Committee convened a meeting with diverse representation among imaging experts and oncologists to generate a comprehensive review of the state of the field.

Computer-extracted tumour characteristics have been incorporated into medical imaging computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) algorithms for decades. With the advent of radiomics, an extension of CAD involving high-throughput computer-extracted quantitative characterization of healthy or pathological structures and processes as captured by medical imaging, interest in such computer-extracted measurements has increased substantially. However, despite the thousands of radiomic studies, the number of settings in which radiomics has been successfully translated into a clinically useful tool or has obtained FDA clearance is comparatively small. This relative dearth might be attributable to factors such as the varying imaging and radiomic feature extraction protocols used from study to study, the numerous potential pitfalls in the analysis of radiomic data, and the lack of studies showing that acting upon a radiomic-based tool leads to a favourable benefit-risk balance for the patient. Several guidelines on specific aspects of radiomic data acquisition and analysis are already available, although a similar roadmap for the overall process of translating radiomics into tools that can be used in clinical care is needed. Herein, we provide 16 criteria for the effective execution of this process in the hopes that they will guide the development of more clinically useful radiomic tests in the future.

Purpose:Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice.Experimental Design:Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test–retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test–retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics.Results:Test–retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes.Conclusions:On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET–based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response.

Statistical methodology

Purpose: Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice. Experimental Design: Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test–retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test–retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics. Results: Test–retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes. Conclusions: On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET–based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response.

Background Tumor molecular profiling from patients experiencing exceptional responses to systemic therapy may provide insights into cancer biology and improve treatment tailoring. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility of identifying exceptional responders retrospectively, obtaining pre-exceptional response treatment tumor tissues, and analyzing them with state-of-the-art molecular analysis tools to identify potential molecular explanations for responses. Methods Exceptional response was defined as partial (PR) or complete (CR) response to a systemic treatment with population PR or CR rate less than 10% or an unusually long response (eg, duration >3 times published median). Cases proposed by patients’ clinicians were reviewed by clinical and translational experts. Tumor and normal tissue (if possible) were profiled with whole exome sequencing and, if possible, targeted deep sequencing, RNA sequencing, methylation arrays, and immunohistochemistry. Potential germline mutations were tracked for relevance to disease. Results Cases reflected a variety of tumors and standard and investigational treatments. Of 520 cases, 476 (91.5%) were accepted for further review, and 222 of 476 (46.6%) proposed cases met requirements as exceptional responders. Clinical data were obtained from 168 of 222 cases (75.7%). Tumor was provided from 130 of 168 cases (77.4%). Of 117 of the 130 (90.0%) cases with sufficient nucleic acids, 109 (93.2%) were successfully analyzed; 6 patients had potentially actionable germline mutations. Conclusion Exceptional responses occur with standard and investigational treatment. Retrospective identification of exceptional responders, accessioning, and sequencing of pretreatment archived tissue is feasible. Data from molecular analyses of tumors, particularly when combining results from patients who received similar treatments, may elucidate molecular bases for exceptional responses.

Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40–50 ms at 1.5 T, 20–35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.

A recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The “minimum standard” recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)–prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An “ideal” protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.

Significant advances continue in the development of cancer-specific molecular imaging agents and modalities for diagnosing, staging, and treating various cancer types. For these advances to translate successfully to widespread clinical use, both regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug

Despite the widespread belief that advanced imaging should be very helpful in guiding oncology treatment decision and improving efficiency and success rates in treatment clinical trials, its acceptance has been slow. Part of this is likely attributable to gaps in study design and statistical methodology for these imaging studies. Also, results supporting the performance of the imaging in these roles have largely been insufficient to justify their use within the design of a clinical trial or in treatment decision making. Statistically significant correlations between the imaging results and clinical outcomes are often incorrectly taken as evidence of adequate performance. Assessments of whether the imaging can outperform standard techniques or meaningfully supplement them are also frequently neglected. This paper provides guidance on study designs and statistical analyses for evaluating the performance of advanced imaging in the various roles in treatment decision guidance and clinical trial conduct. Relevant methodology from the imaging literature is reviewed; gaps in the literature are addressed using related concepts from the more extensive genomic and in vitro biomarker literature.

PURPOSE The mode of action of targeted cancer agents (TCAs) differs from classic chemotherapy, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs. We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials with at least one TCA. METHODS We examined the impact of the number of target lesions (TLs) on within-patient variability of tumor response. The prognostic effect of TL response (at 12 weeks or on study on the basis of a maximum five TLs) on survival was studied through landmark and time-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal progression of nontarget disease. RESULTS Data were obtained from 23,259 patients with cancer (36% lung, 28% colorectal, 11% breast, and 25% other); 15,620 received TCAs, predominantly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, as a single agent (37%), combined with other TCAs (7%), or as chemotherapy (56%); 28% received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo. A total of 17,222 patients contributed to the analyses. Within-patient variability decreased with increasing number of TLs, similarly for TCAs (with/without chemotherapy) and chemotherapy only. Mixed responses occurred proportionally in all treatment classes. Landmark analyses showed an ordinal relationship between percentage change from baseline to 12 weeks and overall survival, and demonstrated a clear distinction between tumor shrinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST. Time-dependent analysis showed no marked improvement in the ability to predict survival on the basis of TL tumor growth compared with nontarget progression or new lesion occurrence, regardless of treatment. Similar results were seen for major tumor types and different classes of TCAs. CONCLUSION This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment of TCAs.

We present an overview of the Centers for Quantitative Imaging Excellence (CQIE) program, which was initiated in 2010 to establish a resource of clinical trial-ready sites within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers (NCI-CCs) network. The intent was to enable imaging centers in the NCI-CCs network capable of conducting treatment trials with advanced quantitative imaging end points. We describe the motivations for establishing the CQIE, the process used to initiate the network, the methods of site qualification for positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, and the results of the evaluations over the subsequent 3 years.

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

A small fraction of cancer patients with advanced disease survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors. Molecular mechanisms for exceptional responses to therapy have been identified by genomic analysis of tumor biopsies from individual patients. Here, we analyzed tumor biopsies from an unbiased cohort of 111 exceptional responder patients using multiple platforms to profile genetic and epigenetic aberrations as well as the tumor microenvironment. Integrative analysis uncovered plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic response in nearly a quarter of the patients. The mechanisms were assigned to four broad categories���DNA damage response, intracellular signaling, immune engagement, and genetic alterations characteristic of favorable prognosis���with many tumors falling into multiple categories. These analyses revealed synthetic lethal relationships that may be exploited therapeutically and rare genetic lesions that favor therapeutic success, while also providing a wealth of testable hypotheses regarding oncogenic mechanisms that may influence the response to cancer therapy. Profiling multi-platform genomics of 110 cancer patients with an exceptional therapeutic response, Wheeler et al. identify putative molecular mechanisms explaining this survival phenotype in ���23% of cases. Therapeutic success is related to rare molecular features of responding tumors, exploiting synthetic lethality and oncogene addiction.

Two data points from Table 1. (continued) were published in error. The corrected data in Table 1. (continued) are shown, in italic, below.

The National Cancer Institute developed the Centers for Quantitative Imaging Excellence (CQIE) initiative in 2010 to prequalify imaging facilities at all of the National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive and clinical cancer centers for oncology trials using advanced imaging techniques, including PET. Here we review the CQIE PET/CT scanner qualification process and results in detail. Methods: Over a period of approximately 5 y, sites were requested to submit a variety of phantoms, including uniform and American College of Radiology-approved phantoms, PET/CT images, and examples of clinical images. Submissions were divided into 3 distinct time periods: initial submission (T0) and 2 requalification submissions (T1 and T2). Images were analyzed using standardized procedures, and scanners received a pass or fail designation. Sites had the opportunity to submit new data for scanners that failed. Quantitative results were compared across scanners within a given time period and across time periods for a given scanner. Results: Data from 65 unique PET/CT scanners across 56 sites were submitted for CQIE T0 qualification; 64 scanners passed the qualification. Data from 44 (68%) of those 65 scanners were submitted for T2. From T0 to T2, the percentage of scanners passing the CQIE qualification on the first attempt rose from 38% for T1 to 67% for T2. The most common reasons for failure were SUV outside specifications, incomplete submission, and uniformity issues. Uniform phantom and American College of Radiology-approved phantom results between scanner manufacturers were similar. Conclusion: The results of the CQIE process showed that periodic requalification may decrease the frequency of deficient data submissions. The CQIE project also highlighted the concern within imaging facilities about the burden of maintaining different qualifications and accreditations. Finally, for quantitative imaging-based trials, further evaluation of the relationships between the level of the qualification (e.g., bias or precision) and the quality of the image data, accrual rates, and study power is needed.

A workshop at the National Cancer Institute on May 2, 2016, considered the current state of imaging in assessment of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy has shown some remarkable and prolonged responses in the treatment of tumors. However, responses are variable and frequently delayed, complicating the evaluation of new immunotherapy agents and customizing treatment for individual patients. Early anatomic imaging may show that a tumor has increased in size, but this could represent pseudoprogression. On the basis of imaging, clinicians must decide if they should stop, pause, or continue treatment. Other imaging technologies and approaches are being developed to improve the measurement of response in patients receiving immunotherapy. Imaging methods that are being evaluated include radiomic methods using CT, MRI, and F-18-FDG PET, as well as new radiolabeled small molecules, antibodies, and antibody fragments to image the tumor microenvironment, immune status, and changes over the course of therapy. Current studies of immunotherapy can take advantage of these available imaging options to explore and validate their use. Collection of CT, PET, and MR images along with outcomes from trials is critical to develop improved methods of assessment.

Purpose Progressive disease (PD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 is defined as growth of measurable target lesions, presence of new lesions or unequivocal progression of non-target disease. In this manuscript we explored whether a more refined categorisation of tumour response and/or these components of progression, varying over time, can improve prediction of overall survival (OS) in the RECIST database. Methods Data were randomly selected from 13 randomised clinical trials (3758 patients with breast, lung or colorectal cancer). A maximum of five target lesions contributed to the sum of longest diameters. At each measurement time we determined: best target response as best % improvement from baseline; tumour growth of target lesions as worst % change and worst rate of increase (mm/week) from nadir; presence of new lesions and occurrence of non-target PD. OS was analysed by tumour type using Cox regression, adjusting for baseline sum and including these parameters as time-dependent covariates. Results 36% of patients had new lesions, 28% non-target PD and 49% experienced target lesion growth (median strongest growth 1.5 mm/week). Regardless of tumour type, presence of new lesions (hazard ratio (HR) ranging 1.5–2.3) and non-target PD (HR 1.5–2.0) were strongly associated with worse OS. The explanatory value of tumour growth for OS was low compared to the other components. Conclusion Modelling target lesion tumour growth did not show a marked improvement in OS prediction over and above the other components. These analyses enable a better understanding of the role of each component in PD evaluation. Work is ongoing to incorporate this information into an updated version of RECIST with enhanced prediction of subsequent survival.

Purpose: With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria.Methods: 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version.Results: Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation.Conclusions: Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Molecular imaging with PET has emerged as a powerful imaging tool in the clinical care of oncological patients. Assessing therapy response is a prime application of PET and so the integration of PET into multicentre trials can offer valuable scientific insights and shape future clinical practice. However, there are a number of logistic and methodological challenges that have to be dealt with. These range from availability and regulatory compliance of the PET radiopharmaceutical to availability of scan time for research purposes. Standardization of imaging and reconstruction protocols, quality control, image processing and analysis are of paramount importance. Strategies for harmonization of the final image and the quantification result are available and can be implemented within the scope of multicentre accreditation programmes. Data analysis can be performed either locally or by centralized review. Response assessment can be done visually or using more quantitative approaches, depending on the research question. Large-scale real-time centralized review can be achieved using web-based solutions. Specific challenges for the future are inclusion of PET/MRI scanners in multicentre trials and the incorporation of radiomic analyses. Inclusion of PET in multicentre trials is a necessity to guarantee the further development of PET for routine clinical care and may yield very valuable scientific insights.

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden—a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline—iRECIST—was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

Background The aim of this study was to compare the percentage change in 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) standard uptake value (SUV) between baseline and after one cycle of chemotherapy in patients categorized by RECIST 1.1 computed tomography (CT) as responders or non-responders after two cycles of therapy. Change in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake was also compared between these time points. Nine patients with newly diagnosed, operable, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were imaged with FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET), FLT PET/CT, and CT at baseline, following one cycle of neoadjuvant therapy (75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 75 mg/m2 cisplatin), and again after the second cycle of therapy. All patients had a biopsy prior to enrollment and underwent surgical resection within 4 weeks of post-cycle 2 imaging. Results Between baseline and post-cycle 1, non-responders had mean SULmax (maximum standard uptake value adjusted for lean body mass) increases of 7.0 and 3.4% for FDG and FLT, respectively. Responders had mean decreases of 44.8 and 32.0% in FDG and FLT SULmax, respectively, between baseline and post-cycle 1 imaging. On post-cycle 1 imaging, primary tumor FDG SUL values were significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (P = 0.016). Primary tumor FLT SUL values did not differ significantly between these groups. Using the change from baseline to post-cycle 1, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for FDG and 0.78 for FLT in predicting anatomic tumor response after the second cycle of therapy. Conclusions Fractional decrease in FDG SULmax from baseline to post-cycle 1 imaging was significantly different between anatomic responders and non-responders, while percentage changes in FLT SULmax were not significantly different between these groups over the same period of time.

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.

Although advanced imaging is an important component of oncology clinical trials, there has not been a lot of success in advancing its use from a research perspective. One likely reason is the lack of consensus on the methodology used to study advanced imaging in trials, which results in a disconcerted research effort and produces data that are difficult to collate for use in validating the imaging components being studied. Imaging is used in cancer clinical trials for various indications, and the study design needed to evaluate the imaging in a particular indication will vary. Through case examples, this paper will discuss how advanced imaging is currently being investigated in oncology clinical trials, categorized by the potential clinical indication for the imaging tool and offer suggestions on how development should proceed to further evaluate imaging in the given indication. Available National Cancer Institute resources that can assist in this process will also be discussed.

Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials.The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases.The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta -analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker.Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting biomedical research. The NIH's mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. In support of this mission, NIH has invested about $4.4 billion since 2001 in nanotechnology (NT) research. This investment is leading to fundamental changes in understanding biological processes in health and disease, as well as enabling novel diagnostics and interventions for treating disease. NIH scientists are developing molecular agents and methods for earlier and more accurate diagnosis and therapies aimed directly and selectively at diseased cells, and are exploring root causes of common and rare diseases at the nanoscale. Work is also underway to move these research tools and devices into clinical practice. This particular investigative review examines the NIH NT portfolio linked to clinical trials from FY2008 to FY2015 to assess the progress of clinical translation. Among the subset of trials identified, 70% target drug or combination drug-device products used in treating cancer, AIDS, and other various diseases. The review also provides insight into trends observed from studying the clinical research portfolio.

A biomarker is a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biologic processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention. In vitro biomarkers include histopathologic and serologic correlates and the newer genomic and proteomic assays. In vivo biomarkers include evaluation of disease extent with CT and MR imaging and disease characterization using molecular and functional imaging with single-photon emission CT, PET, and optical agents. This article reviews the various roles a biomarker can play and the path of evaluation and development of these assays. The specifics of development of PET biomarkers and the role that standardization plays are highlighted.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a long-standing interest in evaluating and using the known advantages of molecular and functional imaging, as well as assessing the potential of novel imaging agents and modalities, to improve clinical cancer research and cancer care. In this Perspectives article, I discuss the strategies and resources being used by the NCI to foster and enhance these evaluations. Although resource and logistical challenges abound in successfully mounting these trials, many examples exist of real and potential solutions to improve the clinical evaluation process for imaging agents and modalities in the USA and in international collaborations.

PET with the glucose analog F-18-FDG is increasingly used to monitor tumor response to therapy. To use quantitative measurements of tumor F-18-FDG uptake for assessment of tumor response, the repeatability of this quantitative metabolic imaging method needs to be established. Therefore, we determined the repeatability of different standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements using the available data. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies addressing F-18-FDG repeatability in malignant tumors. The level of agreement between test and retest values of 2 PET uptake measures, maximum SUV (SUVmax) and mean SUV (SUVmean), was assessed with the coefficient of repeatability using generalized linear mixed-effects models. In addition, the influence of tumor volume on repeatability was assessed. Principal component transformation was used to compare the reproducibility of the 2 different uptake measures. Results: Five cohorts were identified for this metaanalysis. For SUVmax and SUVmean, datasets of 86 and 102 patients, respectively, were available. Percentage repeatability is a function of the level of uptake. SUVmean had the best repeatability characteristics; for serial PET scans, a threshold of a combination of 20% as well as 1.2 SUVmean units was most appropriate. After adjusting for uptake rate, tumor volume had minimal influence on repeatability. Conclusion: SUVmean had better repeatability performance than SUVmax. Both measures showed poor repeatability for lesions with low F-18-FDG uptake. We recommend the evaluation of biologic effects in PET by reporting a combination of minimal relative and absolute changes to account for test retest variability.

Imaging data have the potential to provide information on disease profiling pertaining to diagnosis, prognosis, selection of therapy, monitoring of response to therapy and pharmacokinetic information of drugs. Selection of the most appropriate imaging modality for a specific task will be vital for diagnosis, stratification, treatment response or treatment efficacy, toxicity assessment, and treatment outcome measures (progression-free survival). The EORTC Imaging Group was formed to establish and maintain the scientific and clinical value of advanced imaging in EORTC clinical trials. The group focuses on the development of specific analytical and review procedures as well as quality control procedures, in the context of clinical trials conducted by the EORTC groups. (C) 2012 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. All rights reserved.

Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to surgery provides enhanced options for locoregional management and has become an integral component of primary breast cancer management. Initial tumor response in patients receiving NAC is generally determined at therapy completion. This evaluation is determined by either the presence/absence of palpable tumor as a clinical response and/or presence/absence of invasive tumor cells in the breast and nodes as a pathological response. The ability to evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy early during treatment would be of significant importance. FDG PET imaging has been shown to be predictive of subsequent tumor response, but the tendency of FDG to accumulate in inflammatory tissues can complicate image interpretation. MRI changes have also been touted as predictors of response. Preliminary data suggest that early FLT PET is better able to predict response to therapy, as FLT uptake has been shown to correlate with cellular proliferation, and does not significantly accumulate in inflammatory tissue (Kenny et al, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007:1339–1347). The analysis of these data may provide a better understanding of early treatment response and improve the clinical management of breast cancer in the future. Trial design and eligibility: In this phase II multi-institutional study, breast cancer patients with locally advanced disease with a tumor size ≥2cm (measured on imaging or estimated by physical exam) are eligible. Participants will receive standard of care NAC at their respective institutions. Participants will have 3 FLT imaging sessions to evaluate therapy response: at baseline, early-treatment (5-10 days after initiating treatment), and post-treatment prior to surgery. Specific aims: The primary objective is to correlate the percentage change in the standardized uptake value between baseline and early therapy FLT in the primary tumor with pathologic response. Correlatively, FLT PET parameters will be compared with proliferative indices from the initial biopsy and residual tumor surgical samples using Ki-67 staining, mitotic index, and residual cancer burden. Potential safety issues and the physiologic effects associated with FLT administration will also be evaluated. Statistical methods: To evaluate the relationship between an uptake parameter and pathologic complete response, a ROC curve will be estimated and the area under the curve, along with its 95% confidence interval, will be determined. Accrual: Currently, 45/67 patients have accrued to the study. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-05-03.

Lymph nodes are common sites of metastatic disease in many solid tumours. Unlike most metastases, lymph nodes are normal anatomic structures and as such, normal lymph nodes will have a measurable size. Additionally, the imaging literature recommends that lymph nodes be measured in the short axis, since the short axis measurement is a more reproducible measurement and predictive of malignancy. Therefore, the RECIST committee recommends that lymph nodes be measured in their short axis and proposes measurement values and rules for categorising lymph nodes as normal or pathologic; either target or non-target lesions. Data for the RECIST warehouse are presented to demonstrate the potential change in response assessment following these rules. These standardised lymph node guidelines are designed to be easy to implement, focus target lesion measurements on lesions that are likely to be metastatic and prevent false progressions due to minimal change in size.

Background Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. Highlights of revised RECIST 1.1 Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed : based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of ⩾15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5 mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes ‘unequivocal progression’ of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance : the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. Future work A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

Independent central review (ICR) is advocated by regulatory authorities as a means of independent verification of clinical trial end-points dependent on medical imaging, when the data from the trials may be submitted for licensing applications [Food and Drug Administration. United States food and drug administration guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2006; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-492 (oxaliplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-923 (sorafenib tosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-065 (ixabepilone). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-059 (lapatinib ditosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Approval package for BLA numbers 97-0260 and BLA Number 97-0244 (rituximab). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA clinical review of BLA 98-0369 (Herceptin((R)) trastuzumab (rhuMAb HER2)). FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; 1998; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee meeting NDA 21801 (satraplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, et al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. JCO 2007(November):5210-7]. In addition, clinical trial sponsors have used ICR in Phase I-II studies to assist in critical pathway decisions including in-licensing of compounds [Cannistra SA, Matulonis UA, Penson RT, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer or peritoneal serous cancer. JCO 2007(November):5180-6; Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. JCO 2007(August):3407-14; Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. JCO 2007(June):2171-7; Ghassan KA, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. JCO 2006(September):4293-300; Boué F, Gabarre J, GaBarre J, et al. Phase II trial of CHOP plus rituximab in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. JCO 2006(September):4123-8; Chen HX, Mooney M, Boron M, et al. Phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer: an NCI Treatment Referral Center Trial TRC-0301. JCO 2006(July):3354-60; Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JCO 2006(June):2502-12; Jaffer AA, Lee FC, Singh DA, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. JCO 2006(February):663-7; Bouché O, Raoul JL, Bonnetain F, et al. Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin, or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer: a Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study-FFCD 9803. JCO 2004(November):4319-28]. This article will focus on the definition and purpose of ICR and the issues and lessons learned in the ICR setting primarily in Phase II and III oncology studies. This will include a discussion on discordance between local and central interpretations, consequences of ICR, reader discordance during the ICR, operational considerations and the need for specific imaging requirements as part of the study protocol.

The proceedings of a workshop focusing on a project to evaluate the use of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) as a tool to measure treatment response in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are described. Sponsored by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the Foundation of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute, and attended by representatives of the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and scientists and clinical researchers from academia and the pharmaceutical and medical imaging industries, the workshop reviewed the etiology and current standards of care for NHL and proposed the development of a clinical trial to validate FDG-PET imaging techniques as a predictive biomarker for cancer therapy response. As organized under the auspices of the Oncology Biomarker Qualification Initiative, the three federal health agencies and their private sector and nonprofit/advocacy group partners believe that FDG-PET not only demonstrates the potential to be used for the diagnosis and staging of many cancers but in particular can provide an early indication of therapeutic response that is well correlated with clinical outcomes for chemotherapy for this common form of lymphoma. The development of standardized criteria for FDG-PET imaging and establishment of procedures for transmission, storage, quality assurance, and analysis of PET images afforded by this demonstration project could streamline clinical trials of new treatments for more intractable forms of lymphoma and other cancers and, hence, accelerate new drug approvals.

A recent joint meeting was held on January 30, 2014, with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), clinical scientists, imaging experts, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocate groups to discuss imaging endpoints for clinical trials in glioblastoma. This workshop developed a set of priorities and action items including the creation of a standardized MRI protocol for multicenter studies. The current document outlines consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol (BTIP), along with the scientific and practical justifications for these recommendations, resulting from a series of discussions between various experts involved in aspects of neuro-oncology neuroimaging for clinical trials. The minimum recommended sequences include: (i) parameter-matched precontrast and postcontrast inversion recovery-prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo; (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquired after contrast injection and before postcontrast 3D T1-weighted images to control timing of images after contrast administration; (iii) precontrast, axial 2D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; and (iv) precontrast, axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images. Recommended ranges of sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5 T and 3 T MR systems.

Cancer treatment evolves through oncology clinical trials. Cancer trials are multimodal and complex. Assuring high-quality data are available to answer not only study objectives but also questions not anticipated at study initiation is the role of quality assurance. The National Cancer Institute reorganized its cancer clinical trials program in 2014. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) was formed and within it was established a Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Organization. This organization is Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group, consisting of 6 quality assurance centers that provide imaging and radiation therapy quality assurance for the NCTN. Sophisticated imaging is used for cancer diagnosis, treatment, and management as well as for image-driven technologies to plan and execute radiation treatment. Integration of imaging and radiation oncology data acquisition, review, management, and archive strategies are essential for trial compliance and future research. Lessons learned from previous trials are and provide evidence to support diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy data acquisition in NCTN trials.

Imaging has steadily evolved in clinical cancer research as a result of improved conventional imaging methods and the innovation of new functional and molecular imaging techniques. Despite this evolution, the design and data quality derived from imaging within clinical trials are not ideal and gaps exist with paucity of optimised methods, constraints of trial operational support, and scarce resources. Difficulties associated with integrating imaging biomarkers into trials have been neglected compared with inclusion of tissue and blood biomarkers, largely because of inherent challenges in the complexity of imaging technologies, safety issues related to new imaging contrast media, standardisation of image acquisition across multivendor platforms, and various postprocessing options available with advanced software. Ignorance of these pitfalls directly affects the quality of the imaging read-out, leading to trial failure, particularly when imaging is a primary endpoint. Therefore, we propose a practical risk-based framework and recommendations for trials driven by imaging biomarkers, which allow identification of risks at trial initiation to better allocate resources and prioritise key tasks.

Accurate detection of the presence and extent of disease is vital in the management of non–small-cell lung cancer. While computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging tend to be the routine diagnostic modalities used in the management of lung cancer, there have been significant advances in the field of functional and molecular imaging. In this article, we review the performance of the functional imaging techniques that are currently available for the evaluation of non–small-cell lung cancer. The techniques range from evaluation of glucose metabolism in tumors with fluorodeoxyglucose, to evaluation of proliferation with fluorothymidine and evaluation of tumor hypoxia with agents such as fluoromisonidazole. Magnetic resonance imaging with an emphasis on dynamic contrast enhancement of tumors as well as detecting of malignant lymph nodes with targeted contrast agents is discussed. Emerging technologies such as lung imaging fluorescence endoscopy are considered. The role of functional imaging in planning, predicting response to, and evaluating effects of, various therapies is explored.

2-[18F]Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) assesses a fundamental property of neoplasia, the Warburg effect. This molecular imaging technique offers a complementary approach to anatomic imaging that is more sensitive and specific in certain cancers. FDG-PET has been widely applied in oncology primarily as a staging and restaging tool that can guide patient care. However, because it accurately detects recurrent or residual disease, FDG-PET also has significant potential for assessing therapy response. In this regard, it can improve patient management by identifying responders early, before tumor size is reduced; nonresponders could discontinue futile therapy. Moreover, a reduction in the FDG-PET signal within days or weeks of initiating therapy (e.g., in lymphoma, non–small cell lung, and esophageal cancer) significantly correlates with prolonged survival and other clinical end points now used in drug approvals. These findings suggest that FDG-PET could facilitate drug development as an early surrogate of clinical benefit. This article reviews the scientific basis of FDG-PET and its development and application as a valuable oncology imaging tool. Its potential to facilitate drug development in seven oncologic settings (lung, lymphoma, breast, prostate, sarcoma, colorectal, and ovary) is addressed. Recommendations include initial validation against approved therapies, retrospective analyses to define the magnitude of change indicative of response, further prospective validation as a surrogate of clinical benefit, and application as a phase II/III trial end point to accelerate evaluation and approval of novel regimens and therapies.

Oncology has undergone major changes in systemic treatment options, from chemotherapy to antiangiogenic agents to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to immunotherapy. Historically, a therapeutic agent is tested in separate trials as monotherapy or combined with investigational or approved agents/modalities, to determine antitumor activity in each histology based on the premise that each histology responds differently to the same treatment. This paradigm is time consuming and may or may not make use of molecular characterization to test each agent in each histology. However, with the expansion of biologic understanding and development of various biomarkers, e.g., estrogen receptor and Her 2 amplification, we move beyond the basic paradigm of general histology to one in which treatment is based upon molecular characteristics of the tumor. Examples of recent discoveries from this more modern paradigm are (1) multiple histologies sharing a common molecular profile and (2) a subset within a single histology having a given molecular characteristic. Various agents have been tested singularly in terms of molecular aberrations and histology, e.g., ALK inhibitors and NSCLC. However, with the rapid increase in the number of targeted agents in development, more facile and efficient clinical trial designs are needed. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) collaborated in designing the Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial (NCI-MATCH or EAY131), the first large-scale signal-finding precision medicine oncology trial in the United States to incorporate centralized NGS testing to direct patients to parallel (nonrandomized) phase II treatment arms under a master protocol. The trial is being conducted by the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), with ECOG-ACRIN leading the trial. More than 100 investigators from across the NCTN adult cancer-oriented member groups (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN, NRG Oncology, and SWOG) have worked collaboratively to design and lead what is currently 30 treatment arms (subprotocols), with more arms in development. Wide-scale NCTN investigator involvement ensures use of the latest knowledge to define the actionable mutations required for eligibility and to make evidence-based selections of experimental agents. In NCI-MATCH, patients are assigned treatment based on the genomic alterations found in their tumors through genomic sequencing and other tests at the time of initial enrollment for screening. Unlike other phase II trials, each arm is open to advanced solid tumors, lymphomas, or myeloma that share a set of molecular aberrations, not restricted to a single histology. This strategy accommodates and encourages enrollment of rare tumors for which there are often no standard treatments and limited clinical trial options. NCI-MATCH has 10-30 concurrent treatment arms available to patients at any given time, testing both investigational agents and FDA-approved drugs for new indications. Most treatment arms have an enrollment goal of 35 patients, with some arms that address tumor gene variants of higher prevalence expanded to 70 patients. Together, the NCTN and NCI Community Oncology Research Program provide infrastructure for many clinical sites (>1100) to participate, providing ready access to physicians and patients; screening enrollment has occurred in all 50 states in the U.S, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A specific assay was developed for the trial (the MATCH assay), and a laboratory network was organized to rapidly process the tissue and efficiently interrogate for mutations. NCI and ECOG-ACRIN statisticians developed the analysis plan and are currently maintaining data that are closely monitored by safety experts for any adverse event signals. Lastly, a bioinformatics system (MATCHbox) was developed to coordinate molecular data collection and support rule-based decision-making based on those data. Because genomics in oncology is rapidly expanding and evolving, NCI-MATCH required flexibility to accommodate brisker screening accrual than anticipated, and adaptation to constantly emerging information about new drugs and new molecular alterations. The goal to sequence the tumors of 6,000 patients with NCI funding was achieved two years ahead of schedule, but that cohort was not sufficient to fill all the arms—in particular, those aimed at the most rarely occurring tumor gene aberrations. Currently, the goal for the trial is to complete the open treatment arms by allowing for designated commercial and academic laboratories to notify ordering physicians when genomic tests they ordered to guide clinical care indicate a potential eligibility to a NCI-MATCH arm with a rare variant and allow for enrollment to the relevant treatment subprotocol if the patient meets all subprotocol eligibility criteria. The tissue confirmation of the molecular abnormality on the MATCH assay by the central laboratories will be accomplished after subprotocol enrollment so that patient treatment will not be delayed for confirmation. A demonstration project is now under way to test the applicability of this approach and potentially develop common standards for future use. With tumor sequencing becoming a more and more common practice in oncology, this may allow patients with mutations of low prevalence to have investigational treatment options. NCI-MATCH is expanding its panel and definition of actionable mutations to allow greater flexibility to incorporate in real time new mutations supported with adequate levels of evidence. The valuable genomic and clinical outcome data collected in the trial will permit evaluation of efficacy of targeting certain actionable mutations with a specific agent. In addition, biospecimens are being collected to build a rich resource for conducting auxiliary biology studies that may answer questions about prevalence of mutations in the metastatic setting, prevalence of mutations in rare histologies, and resistance mechanisms of various targeted therapy. At this meeting, two abstracts will provide an overall trial update and present information about the prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the centrally screened population. Citation Format: Alice P. Chen, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Lyndsay Harris, Barbara A. Conley, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mickey Williams, Robert J. Gray, Shuli Li, Lisa M. McShane, Lawrence V. Rubinstein, Susanna I. Lee, Shaji Kumar, Edith P. Mitchell, James A. Zwiebel, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Lalitha K. Shankar, Paolo F. Caimi, Carlos L. Arteaga, A John Iafrate, Jeffrey Sklar, Richard F. Little, Keith T. Flaherty. NCI-MATCH: A new paradigm in the era of genomic oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PL03-01.

2534 Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 were derived from an international collaborative effort supported by data from clinical trials (16 studies, 9147 patients) on cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT), providing a standard tool for response assessment. RECIST’s role has been questioned for TCA. Using a pooled individual patient database (IPD) from clinical trials performed by industry and cooperative groups, we assessed whether modifications to RECIST are required to evaluate antitumor activity of TCA. Methods: Data were collected from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials testing TCA in solid tumors. To study the occurrence of mixed responses, the variability of response of lesions within patients was studied. Furthermore, response was correlated with survival through landmark analyses and time dependent Cox models. Results: Clinical data were obtained from 23,259 patients, mainly with lung (36%), colorectal (28%) or breast cancer (11%). 15,620 patients (67%) received a TCA, mainly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, either as single agent (37%) or combined with other TCAs (7%) or CT (56%); 28% received CT only and 5% best supportive care or placebo. Within-patient variability reduced as the number of lesions used for response assessment increased, and did so similarly for TCAs (+/- CT) and CT. Mixed responses seemed to occur similarly across these treatment categories as well. Landmark analyses showed improving overall survival by % tumor shrinkage and a clear distinction between the effect of tumor shrinkage and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1. This was confirmed by time dependent analysis. In addition target lesion growth showed no marked improvement in overall survival prediction over and above the other components of RECIST 1.1 PD (new lesions, non-target PD), regardless of treatment (TCA, CT or both) received. Similar results were seen focusing on major tumor types and classes of TCA. Conclusions: Using a large IPD dataset we demonstrated that RECIST 1.1 performs equally well for response assessment of TCA as for CT. No modifications are required.

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands NCIC Clinical trials group, Queens University, Kingston, Canada Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States NCI Cancer Imaging Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MA, United States

Iodine-123 is a pure gamma emitter and has excellent characteristics for imaging with modern scintillation cameras. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of I-123 and I-131 as imaging agents for whole-body scanning in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer undergoing ablation for thyroid remnants after initial surgery.Fourteen patients with differentiated thyroid cancer who had undergone near-total thyroidectomy and had serum thyroid-stimulating hormone levels greater than 40 mU/I underwent diagnostic scanning 5 hours after administration of 48 to 56 MBq (1.3 to 1.5 mCi) I-123 and 48 hours after administration of 111 MBq (3 mCi) I-131. After receiving ablative I-131 therapy, they also underwent whole-body planar imaging 7 days later. The diagnostic I-123 and I-131 scans were compared with each other and with the post-therapy images by two nuclear medicine physicians and one endocrinologist.The diagnostic scans revealed 35 foci in the thyroid bed and neck. The I-123 images showed all 35 foci, but only 32 of the 35 foci (91 %) were seen on the I-131 scans. The findings of pre- and post-therapy scans were concordant in 11 of 13 patients, and the same general sites of uptake (left and right thyroid bed, midline) were revealed on both sets of images. In one patient, a focus seen on the diagnostic I-123 and I-131 images was not visualized on the post-therapy scan and was thought to represent possible stunning. An additional area of uptake in the lower right neck and upper mediastinum was present on the post-therapy scan of another patient, but it was not seen on diagnostic images.These results show improved quality of imaging with 50 MBq (1.5 mCi) I-123 compared with 111 MBq (3 mCi) I-131 for whole-body scanning in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer undergoing thyroid remnant ablation. I-123 imaging may prove to be the preferred procedure in such settings in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer.

16α-[(18)F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography (FES-PET) quantifies estrogen receptor (ER) expression in tumors and may provide diagnostic benefit.Women with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from an ER-positive primary tumor were imaged before starting endocrine therapy. FES uptake was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, and associated with response and with ER expression.Nineteen patients underwent FES imaging. Fifteen had a biopsy of a metastasis and 15 were evaluable for response. Five patients had quantitatively low FES uptake, six had at least one site of qualitatively FES-negative disease. All patients with an ER-negative biopsy had both low uptake and at least one site of FES-negative disease. Of response-evaluable patients, 2/2 with low FES standard uptake value tumors had progressive disease within 6 months, as did 2/3 with qualitatively FES-negative tumors.Low/absent FES uptake correlates with lack of ER expression. FES-positron emission tomography can help identify patients with endocrine resistant disease and safely measures ER in MBC.

The limitations of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for the assessment of molecularly targeted agents have been increasingly recognized with the advance of new therapies. The current study and others focusing on vascular endothelial growth factor-pathway inhibitors in advanced renal cell carcinoma highlight that tumor shrinkage below the RECIST threshold can be associated with significant clinical benefit, and flexibility in size change categorization should be considered in future modification of the criteria.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) charged the Biomarker Task Force to develop recommendations to improve the decisions about incorporation of biomarker studies in early investigational drug trials. The Task Force members reviewed biomarker trials, the peer-reviewed literature, NCI and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents, and conducted a survey of investigators to determine practices and challenges to executing biomarker studies in clinical trials of new drugs in early development. This document provides standard definitions and categories of biomarkers, and lists recommendations to sponsors and investigators for biomarker incorporation into such trials. Our recommendations for sponsors focus on the identification and prioritization of biomarkers and assays, the coordination of activities for the development and use of assays, and for operational activities. We also provide recommendations for investigators developing clinical trials with biomarker studies for scientific rationale, assay criteria, trial design, and analysis. The incorporation of biomarker studies into early drug trials is complex. Thus the decision to proceed with studies of biomarkers should be based on balancing the strength of science, assay robustness, feasibility, and resources with the burden of proper sample collection on the patient and potential impact of the results on drug development. The Task Force provides these guidelines in the hopes that improvements in biomarker studies will enhance the efficiency of investigational drug development. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1745–55

Purpose The need for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger as we have made progress both in cancer treatment and screening. We sought to identify those efforts already underway which facilitate such collaboration, as well as barriers to greater collaboration. Methods We reviewed the collective experiences of many cooperative groups, governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic investigators in their work to build international collaboration in cancer clinical trials across multiple disease sites. Results More than a decade of work has led to effective global harmonization for many of the elements critical to cancer clinical trials. Many barriers remain, but effective international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials should become the norm, rather than the exception. Conclusion Our ability to strengthen international collaborations will result in maximization of our resources and patients, permitting us to change practice by establishing more effective therapeutic strategies. Regulatory, logistical, and financial hurdles, however, often hamper the conduct of joint trials. We must work together as a global community to overcome these barriers so that we may continue to improve cancer treatment for patients around the world.