Posts Tagged ‘magnetic resonance’

Brain Biobank and studies of disease structure correlates

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator



Unveiling Psychiatric Diseases

Researchers create neuropsychiatric cellular biobank

Image: iStock/mstroz
Image: iStock/mstroz
Researchers from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital have completed the first stage of an important collaboration aimed at understanding the intricate variables of neuropsychiatric disease—something that currently eludes clinicians and scientists.

The research team, led by Isaac Kohane at HMS and Roy Perlis at Mass General, has created a neuropsychiatric cellular biobank—one of the largest in the world.

It contains induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, derived from skin cells taken from 100 people with neuropsychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, and from 50 people without neuropsychiatric illness.

In addition, a detailed profile of each patient, obtained from hours of in-person assessment as well as from electronic medical records, is matched to each cell sample.

As a result, the scientific community can now for the first time access cells representing a broad swath of neuropsychiatric illness. This enables researchers to correlate molecular data with clinical information in areas such as variability of drug reactions between patients. The ultimate goal is to help treat, with greater precision, conditions that often elude effective management.

The cell collection and generation was led by investigators at Mass General, who in collaboration with Kohane and his team are working to characterize the cell lines at a molecular level. The cell repository, funded by the National Institutes of Health, is housed at Rutgers University.

“This biobank, in its current form, is only the beginning,” said Perlis, director of the MGH Psychiatry Center for Experimental Drugs and Diagnostics and HMS associate professor of psychiatry. “By next year we’ll have cells from a total of four hundred patients, with additional clinical detail and additional cell types that we will share with investigators.”

A current major limitation to understanding brain diseases is the inability to access brain biopsies on living patients. As a result, researchers typically study blood cells from patients or examine post-mortem tissue. This is in stark contrast with diseases such as cancer, for which there are many existing repositories of highly characterized cells from patients.

The new biobank offers a way to push beyond this limitation.


A Big Step Forward

While the biobank is already a boon to the scientific community, researchers at MGH and the HMS Department of Biomedical Informatics will be adding additional layers of molecular data to all of the cell samples. This information will include whole genome sequencing and transcriptomic and epigenetic profiling of brain cells made from the stem cell lines.

Collaborators in the HMS Department of Neurobiology, led by Michael Greenberg, department chair and Nathan Marsh Pusey Professor of Neurobiology,  will also work to examine characteristics of other types of neurons derived from these stem cells.

“This can potentially alter the entire way we look at and diagnose many neuropsychiatric conditions,” said Perlis.

One example may be to understand how the cellular responses to medication correspond to the patient’s documented responses, comparing in vitro with in vivo. “This would be a big step forward in bringing precision medicine to psychiatry,” Perlis said.

“It’s important to recall that in the field of genomics, we didn’t find interesting connections to disease until we had large enough samples to really investigate these complex conditions,” said Kohane, chair of the HMS Department of Biomedical Informatics.

“Our hypothesis is that here we will require far fewer patients,” he said. “By measuring the molecular functioning of the cells of each patient rather than only their genetic risk, and combining that all that’s known of these people in terms of treatment response and cognitive function, we will discover a great deal of valuable information about these conditions.”

Added Perlis, “In the early days of genetics, there were frequent false positives because we were studying so few people. We’re hoping to avoid the same problem in making cellular models, by ensuring that we have a sufficient number of cell lines to be confident in reporting differences between patient groups.”

The generation of stem cell lines and characterization of patients and brain cell lines is funded jointly by the the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Human Genome Research Institute and a grant from the Centers of Excellence in Genomic Science program.


On C.T.E. and Athletes, Science Remains in Its Infancy

Se Hoon ChoiYoung Hye KimMatthias Hebisch, et al.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, characterized by two pathological hallmarks: amyloid-β plaques and neurofibrillary tangles1. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease posits that the excessive accumulation of amyloid-β peptide leads to neurofibrillary tangles composed of aggregated hyperphosphorylated tau2, 3. However, to date, no single disease model has serially linked these two pathological events using human neuronal cells. Mouse models with familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) mutations exhibit amyloid-β-induced synaptic and memory deficits but they do not fully recapitulate other key pathological events of Alzheimer’s disease, including distinct neurofibrillary tangle pathology4, 5. Human neurons derived from Alzheimer’s disease patients have shown elevated levels of toxic amyloid-β species and phosphorylated tau but did not demonstrate amyloid-β plaques or neurofibrillary tangles6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here we report that FAD mutations in β-amyloid precursor protein and presenilin 1 are able to induce robust extracellular deposition of amyloid-β, including amyloid-β plaques, in a human neural stem-cell-derived three-dimensional (3D) culture system. More importantly, the 3D-differentiated neuronal cells expressing FAD mutations exhibited high levels of detergent-resistant, silver-positive aggregates of phosphorylated tau in the soma and neurites, as well as filamentous tau, as detected by immunoelectron microscopy. Inhibition of amyloid-β generation with β- or γ-secretase inhibitors not only decreased amyloid-β pathology, but also attenuated tauopathy. We also found that glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) regulated amyloid-β-mediated tau phosphorylation. We have successfully recapitulated amyloid-β and tau pathology in a single 3D human neural cell culture system. Our unique strategy for recapitulating Alzheimer’s disease pathology in a 3D neural cell culture model should also serve to facilitate the development of more precise human neural cell models of other neurodegenerative disorders.



Figure 2: Robust increases of extracellular amyloid-β deposits in 3D-differentiated hNPCs with FAD mutations.close

Robust increases of extracellular amyloid-[bgr] deposits in 3D-differentiated hNPCs with FAD mutations.

a, Thin-layer 3D culture protocol. HC, histochemistry; IF, immunofluorescence; IHC, immunohistochemistry. b, Amyloid-β deposits in 6-week differentiated control and FAD ReN cells in 3D Matrigel (green, GFP; blue, 3D6; scale bar, …


Stem Cell-Based Spinal Cord Repair Enables Robust Corticospinal Regeneration


Novel use of EPR spectroscopy to study in vivo protein structure


α-synuclein is a protein found abundantly throughout the brain. It is present mainly at the neuron ends where it is thought to play a role in ensuring the supply of synaptic vesicles in presynaptic terminals, which are required for the release of neurotransmitters to relay signals between neurons. It is critical for normal brain function.

However, α-synuclein is also the primary protein component of the cerebral amyloid deposits characteristic of Parkinson’s disease and its precursor is found in the amyloid plaques of Alzheimer’s disease. Although α-synuclein is present in all areas of the brain, these disease-state amyloid plaques only arise in distinct areas.

Alpha-synuclein protein. May play role in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.  © /

Imaging of isolated samples of α-synuclein in vitro indicate that it does not have the precise 3D folded structure usually associated with proteins. It is therefore classed as an intrinsically disordered protein. However, it was not known whether the protein also lacked a precise structure in vivo.

There have been reports that it can form helical tetramers. Since the 3D structure of a biological protein is usually precisely matched to the specific function it performs, knowing the structure of α-synuclein within a living cell will help elucidate its role and may also improve understanding of the disease states with which it is associated.

If α-synuclein remains disordered in vivo, it may be possible for the protein to achieve different structures, and have different properties, depending on its surroundings.

Techniques for determining protein structure

It has long been known that elucidating the structure of a protein at an atomic level is fundamental for understanding its normal function and behavior. Furthermore, such knowledge can also facilitate the development of targeted drug treatments. Unfortunately, observing the atomic structure of a protein in vivo is not straightforward.

X-ray diffraction is the technique usually adopted for visualizing structures at atomic resolution, but this requires crystals of the molecule to be produced and this cannot be done without separating the molecules of interest from their natural environment. Such processes can modify the protein from its usual state and, particularly with complex structures, such effects are difficult to predict.

The development of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy improved the situation by making it possible for molecules to be analyzed under in vivo conditions, i.e. same pH, temperature and ionic concentration.

More recently, increases in the sensitivity of NMR and the use of isotope labelling have enabled determinations of the atomic level structure and dynamics of proteins to be determined within living cells1. NMR has been used to determine the structure of a bacterial protein within living cells2 but it is difficult to achieve sufficient quantities of the required protein within mammalian cells and to keep the cells alive for NMR imaging to be conducted.

Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy for determining protein structure

Recently, researchers have managed to overcome these obstacles by using in-cell NMR and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. EPR spectroscopy is a technique that is similar to NMR spectroscopy in that it is based on the measurement and interpretation of the energy differences between excited and relaxed molecular states.

In EPR spectroscopy it is electrons that are excited, whereas in NMR signals are created through the spinning of atomic nuclei. EPR was developed to measure radicals and metal complexes, but has also been utilized to study the dynamic organization of lipids in biological membranes3.

EPR has now been used for the first time in protein structure investigations and has provided atomic-resolution information on the structure of α-synuclein in living mammalians4,5.

Bacterial forms of the α-synuclein protein labelled with 15N isotopes were introduced into five types of mammalian cell using electroporation. Concentrations of α-synuclein close to those found in vivo were achieved and the 15N isotopes allowed the protein to be clearly defined from other cellular components by NMR. The conformation of the protein was then determined using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR).

The results showed that within living mammalian cells α-synuclein remains as a disordered and highly dynamic monomer. Different intracellular environments did not induce major conformational changes.


The novel use of EPR spectroscopy has resolved the mystery surrounding the in vivo conformation of α-synuclein. It showed that α-synuclein maintains its disordered monomeric form under physiological cell conditions. It has been demonstrated for the first time that even in crowded intracellular environments α-synuclein does not form oligomers, showing that intrinsic structural disorder can be sustained within mammalian cells.


  1. Freedberg DI and Selenko P. Live cell NMR Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2014;43:171–192.
  2. Sakakibara D, et al. Protein structure determination in living cells by in-cell NMR spectroscopy. Nature 2009;458:102–105.
  3. Yashroy RC. Magnetic resonance studies of dynamic organisation of lipids in chloroplast membranes. Journal of Biosciences 1990;15(4):281.
  4. Alderson TA and Bax AD. Parkinson’s Disease. Disorder in the court. Nature 2016; doi:10.1038/nature16871.
  5. Theillet FX, et al. Structural disorder of monomeric α-synuclein persists in mammalian cells. Nature 2016; doi:10.1038/nature16531.



Read Full Post »

Current Advanced Research Topics in MRI-based Management of Cancer Patients

 Author: Dror Nir, PhD

Step forward towards quantitative and reproducible MRI of cancer patients is the combination of structure and morphology based imaging with expressions of typical bio-chemical processes using imaging contrast materials. The following list brings the latest publications on this subject in Radiology magazine.

 The Effects of Applying Breast Compression in Dynamic Contrast Material–enhanced MR Imaging


 Purpose: To evaluate the effects of breast compression on breast cancer masses, contrast material enhancement of glandular tissue, and quality of magnetic resonance (MR) images in the identification and characterization of breast lesions.

Materials and Methods: This was a HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–approved retrospective study, with waiver of informed consent. Images from 300 MR imaging examinations in 149 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 51.5 years ± 10.9; age range, 22–76 years) were evaluated. The women underwent diagnostic MR imaging (no compression) and MR-guided biopsy (with compression) between June 2008 and February 2013. Breast compression was expressed as a percentage relative to the noncompressed breast. Percentage enhancement difference was calculated between noncompressed- and compressed-breast images obtained in early and delayed contrast-enhanced phases. Breast density, lesion type (mass vs non-masslike enhancement [NMLE]), lesion size, percentage compression, and kinetic curve type were evaluated. Linear regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and κ test were performed.

Conclusion: Breast compression during biopsy affected breast lesion detection, lesion size, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging interpretation and performance. Limiting the application of breast compression is recommended, except when clinically necessary.

 Localized Prostate Cancer Detection with 18F FACBC PET/CT: Comparison with MR Imaging and Histopathologic Analysis


 Purpose: To characterize uptake of 1-amino-3-fluorine 18-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (18F FACBC) in patients with localized prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and normal prostate tissue and to evaluate its potential utility in delineation of intraprostatic cancers in histopathologically confirmed localized prostate cancer in comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant prospective study. Twenty-one men underwent dynamic and static abdominopelvic 18F FACBC combined positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) and multiparametric (MP) 3-T endorectal MR imaging before robotic-assisted prostatectomy. PET/CT and MR images were coregistered by using pelvic bones as fiducial markers; this was followed by manual adjustments. Whole-mount histopathologic specimens were sliced with an MR-based patient-specific mold. 18F FACBC PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were compared with those at MR imaging and histopathologic analysis for lesion- and sector-based (20 sectors per patient) analysis. Positive and negative predictive values for each modality were estimated by using generalized estimating equations with logit link function and working independence correlation structure.

Conclusion: 18F FACBC PET/CT shows higher uptake in intraprostatic tumor foci than in normal prostate tissue; however, 18F FACBC uptake in tumors is similar to that in BPH nodules. Thus, it is not specific for prostate cancer. Nevertheless, combined 18F FACBC PET/CT and T2-weighted MR imaging enable more accurate localization of prostate cancer lesions than either modality alone.

Illuminating Radiogenomic Characteristics of Glioblastoma Multiforme through Integration of MR Imaging, Messenger RNA Expression, and DNA Copy Number Variation


Purpose: To perform a multilevel radiogenomics study to elucidate the glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging radiogenomic signatures resulting from changes in messenger RNA (mRNA) expression and DNA copy number variation (CNV).

Materials and Methods: Radiogenomic analysis was performed at MR imaging in 23 patients with GBM in this retrospective institutional review board–approved HIPAA-compliant study. Six MR imaging features—contrast enhancement, necrosis, contrast-to-necrosis ratio, infiltrative versus edematous T2 abnormality, mass effect, and subventricular zone (SVZ) involvement—were independently evaluated and correlated with matched genomic profiles (global mRNA expression and DNA copy number profiles) in a significant manner that also accounted for multiple hypothesis testing by using gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), resampling statistics, and analysis of variance to gain further insight into the radiogenomic signatures in patients with GBM

Conclusion: Construction of an MR imaging, mRNA, and CNV radiogenomic association map has led to identification of MR traits that are associated with some known high-grade glioma biomarkers and association with genomic biomarkers that have been identified for other malignancies but not GBM. Thus, the traits and genes identified on this map highlight new candidate radiogenomic biomarkers for further evaluation in future studies.

PET/MR Imaging: Technical Aspects and Potential Clinical Applications


Instruments that combine positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging have recently been assembled for use in humans, and may have diagnostic performance superior to that of PET/computed tomography (CT) for particular clinical and research applications. MR imaging has major strengths compared with CT, including superior soft-tissue contrast resolution, multiplanar image acquisition, and functional imaging capability through specialized techniques such as diffusion-tensor imaging, diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging, functional MR imaging, MR elastography, MR spectroscopy, perfusion-weighted imaging, MR imaging with very short echo times, and the availability of some targeted MR imaging contrast agents. Furthermore, the lack of ionizing radiation from MR imaging is highly appealing, particularly when pediatric, young adult, or pregnant patients are to be imaged, and the safety profile of MR imaging contrast agents compares very favorably with iodinated CT contrast agents. MR imaging also can be used to guide PET image reconstruction, partial volume correction, and motion compensation for more accurate disease quantification and can improve anatomic localization of sites of radiotracer uptake, improve diagnostic performance, and provide for comprehensive regional and global structural, functional, and molecular assessment of various clinical disorders. In this review, we discuss the historical development, software-based registration, instrumentation and design, quantification issues, potential clinical applications, potential clinical roles of image segmentation and global disease assessment, and challenges related to PET/MR imaging.

Read Full Post »

Author and curator: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

This post attempts to integrate three posts and to embed all comments made to all three papers, allowing the reader a critically thought compilation of evidence-based medicine and scientific discourse.

Dr. Dror Nir authored a post on October 16th titled “Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying imaging-guided intervention?” The article attracted over 20 comments from readers including researchers and oncologists debating the following issues:

  • imaging technologies in cancer
  • tumor size, and
  • tumor response to treatment.

The debate lead to several new posts authored by:

This post is a compilation of the views of authors representing different specialties including research and medicine. In medicine: Pathology, Oncology Surgery and Medical Imaging, are represented.

Dr. Nir’s post talked about an advanced technique developed by the researchers at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada for cancer lesions’ detection and image-guided cancer treatment in the specific Region of Interest (ROI). The group was successfully able to show the feasibility and safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) – controlled transurethral ultrasound therapy for prostate cancer in eight patients.

The dilemma of defining the Region of Interest for imaging-based therapy

Dr. Bernstein, one of the authors at, a Fellow of the American College of Pathology, reiterated the objective of the study stating that “Their study’s objective was to prove that using real-time MRI guidance of HIFU treatment is possible and it guarantees that the location of ablated tissue indeed corresponds to the locations planned for treatment.” He expressed his opinion about the study by bringing into focus a very important issue i.e., given the fact that the part surrounding the cancer tissue is in the transition state, challenge in defining a ROI that could be approached by imaging-based therapy. Regarding the study discussed, he states – “This is a method demonstration, but not a proof of concept by any means.  It adds to the cacophany of approaches, and in a much larger study would prove to be beneficial in treatment, but not a cure for serious prostate cancer because it is unlikely that it can get beyond the margin, and also because there is overtreatment at the cutoff of PSA at 4.0. I think that the pathologist has to see the tissue, and the standard in pathology now is for any result that is cancer, two pathologists or a group sitting together should see it. It’s not an easy diagnosis.”

“The crux of the matter in terms of capability is that the cancer tissue, adjacent tissue, and the fibrous matrix are all in transition to the cancerous state. It is taught to resect leaving “free margin”, which is better aesthetically, and has had success in breast surgery. The dilemma is that the patient may return, but how soon?” concludes Dr. Larry.

Dr. Nir responded, “The philosophy behind lumpectomy is preserving quality of life. It was Prof. Veronesi (IEO) who introduced this method 30 years ago noticing that in the majority of cases; the patient will die from something else before presenting recurrence of breast cancer. It is well established that when the resection margins are declared by a pathologist (as good as he/she could be) as “free of cancer”, the probability of recurrence is much lower than otherwise. He explains further, “The worst enemy of finding solutions is doing nothing while using the excuse of looking for the “ultimate solution.” Personally, I believe in combining methods and improving clinical assessment based on information fusion. Being able to predict, and then timely track the response to treatment is a major issue that affects survival and costs!

In this discussion my view is expressed, below.

  • The paper that discusses imaging technique had the objective of finding out whether real-time MRI guidance of treatment was even possible and if yes, whether the treatment could be performed in accurate location of the ROI? The data reveals they were pretty successful in accomplishing their objective and of course that gives hope to the imaging-based targeted therapies.
  • Whether the ROI is defined properly and if it accounts for the real tumor cure, is a different question. Role of pathologists and the histological analysis and what they bring to the table cannot be ruled out, and the absence of a defined line between the tumor and the stromal region in the vicinity is well documented. However, that cannot rule out the value and scope of imaging-based detection and targeted therapy. After all, it is seminal in guiding minimally invasive surgery.
  • As another arm of personalized medicine-based cure for cancer, molecular biologists at MD Anderson have suggested molecular and genetic profiling of the tumor to determine genetic aberrations on the basis of which matched-therapy could be recommended to patients.
  • When phase I trial was conducted, the results were encouraging and the survival rate was better in matched-therapy patients compared to unmatched patients. Therefore, every time there is more to consider when treating a cancer patient and who knows a combination of views of oncologists, pathologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, surgeons would device improvised protocols for diagnosis and treatment. It is always going to be complicated and generalizations would never give an answer. Smart interpretations of therapies – imaging-based or others would always be required!

To read additional comments, including those from Dr. Williams, Dr. Lev-Ari, refers to:

Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying imaging-guided intervention? Author and Reporter: Dror Nir, Ph.D.

Dr. Lev-Ari in her paper linked three fields that bear weight in the determination of Tumor Response to Therapy:

  • Personalized Medicine
  • Cancer Cell Biology, and
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)

Her objectives were to address research methodology, the heterogeneity innate to Cancer Cell Biology and Treatment choice in the Operating Room — all are related to the topic at hand: How to deliver optimal care with least invasive intervention course.

Any attempt aimed at approaching this desirable result, called Personalized Medicine,  involves engagement in three strategies:

  • prediction of Patient’s reaction to Drug induction
  • design of Clinical Trials to validate drug efficacy on small subset of patients predicted to react favorable to drug regimen, increasing validity and reliability
  • Genetical identification of patients at no need to have a drug administered if non sensitivity to the drug has been predicted

These method are to be applied to a list of 56 leading Cancer types.

While the executive task of the clinician remains to assess the differentiation in Tumor Response to Treatment, pursuit of  individualized histopathology, as well as tumor molecular, genetic and functional characteristics has to take into consideration the “total” individual patients’ characteristics: age, co-morbidities, secondary risks and allergies to drugs.

In Dr. Lev-Ari’s paper Minimally Invasive Treatment (MIT) is compared with Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) applied for tumor resection.  In many cases MIS is not the right surgical decision, yet, it is applied for a corollary of patient-centered care considerations. At present, facing the unknown of the future behavior of the tumor as its response to therapeutics bearing uncertainty related to therapy outcomes.

Forget me not – says the ‘Stroma’

Dr. Brücher, the author of review on tumor response criteria, expressed his views on the topic. He remembers that 10 years ago, every cancer researcher stated – “look at the tumor cells only – forget the stroma”. However, the times have changed, “now, everyone knows that it is a system we are looking at, and viewing and analyzing only tumor cells is really not enough.”

He went on to state “if we would be honest, we would have to declare that all data, which had been produced 8-13 years ago, dealing with laser capture microdissection, would need a rescrutinization, because the influence of the stroma was ‘forgotten’.”

He added, “the surgeon looks at the ‘free margin’ in a kind of reductionable model, the pathologist is more the control instance. I personally see the pathologist as ‘the control instance’ of surgical quality. Therefore, not the wish of the surgeon is important, the objective way of looking into problems or challenges. Can a pathologist always state if a R0-resection had been performed?”

What is the real RO-resection?

There have been many surrogate marker analysis, says Dr. Brücher, and that a substantially well thought through structured analysis has never been done: mm by mm and afterwards analyzing that by a ROC analysis. For information on genetic markers on cancer, refer to the following post by Dr. Lev-Ari’s: Personalized Medicine: Cancer Cell Biology and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)

He also stated that there is no gold standard to compare the statistical ROC analysis to. Often it is just declared and stated but it is still not clear what the real RO-resection is?

He added, “in some organs it is very difficult and we all (surgeons, pathologists, clinicians) that we always get to the limit, if we try interpreting the R-classification within the 3rd dimension.”

Dr. Brücher explains regarding resectability classification, “If lymph nodes are negative it does not mean, lymph nodes are really negative. For example, up to 38% upper GI cancers have histological negative lymph nodes, but immunohistochemical positive lymph nodes. And, Stojadinovic et al have also shown similar observations at el in colorectal cancer. So the 4th dimension of cancer – the lymph nodes / the lymphatic vessel invasion are much more important than just a TNM classification, which unfortunately does often not reflect real tumor biology.”

The discussion regarding the transition state of the tumor surrounding tissue and the ‘free margin’ led to a bigger issue, the heterogeneity of tumors.

Dr. Bernstein quoted a few lines from the review article titled “Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate?, authored by Dr Björn LDM Brücher et al published in Future Oncology in 2012.

  • Tumor heterogeneity is a ubiquitous phemomenon. In particular, there are important differences among the various types of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in terms of tumor biology, treatment response and prognosis.
  • This forms the principal basis for targeted therapy directed by tumor-specific testing at either the gene or protein level. Despite rapid advances in our understanding of targeted therapy for GI cancers, the impact on cancer survival has been marginal.
  • Can tumor response to therapy be predicted, thereby improving the selection of patients for cancer treatment?
  • In 2000, the NCI with the European Association for Research and Treatment of Cancer, proposed a replacement of 2D measurement with a decrease in the largest tumor diameter by 30% in one dimension. Tumor response as defined would translate into a 50% decrease for a spherical lesion
  • We must rethink how we may better determine treatment response in a reliable, reproducible way that is aimed at individualizing the therapy of cancer patients.
  • We must change the tools we use to assess tumor response. The new modality should be based on empirical evidence that translates into relevant and meaningful clinical outcome data.
  • This becomes a conundrum of sorts in an era of ‘minimally invasive treatment’.
  • Integrated multidisciplinary panel of international experts – not sure that that will do it.

Dr. Bernstein followed up by authoring a separate post on tumor response. His views on tumor response criteria have been quoted in the following paragraphs:

Can tumor response to therapy be predicted?

The goal is not just complete response. Histopathological response seems to be related post-treatment histopathological assessment but it is not free from the challenge of accurately determining treatment response, as this method cannot delineate whether or not there are residual cancer cells. Functional imaging to assess metabolic response by 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET also has its limits, as the results are impacted significantly by several variables:

• tumor type
• sizing
• doubling time
• anaplasia?
• extent of tumor necrosis
• type of antitumor therapy and the time when response was determined.

The new modality should be based on individualized histopathology as well as tumor molecular, genetic and functional characteristics, and individual patients’ characteristics, a greater challenge in an era of ‘minimally invasive treatment’.

This listing suggests that for every cancer the following data has to be collected (except doubling time). If there were five variables, the classification based on these alone would calculate to be very sizable based on Eugene Rypka’s feature extraction and classification.

But looking forward, time to remission and disease free survival are additionally important. Treatment for cure is not the endpoint, but the best that can be done is to extend the time of survival to a realistic long term goal and retain a quality of life.

For detailed discussion on the topic of tumor response and comments refer to the following posts:

What can we expect of tumor therapeutic response?

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Judging ‘Tumor response’-there is more food for thought

Reporter: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

Additional Sources:

Research articles:

Brücher BLDM  et al. Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate? Future Oncol. August Vol. 8, No. 8, Pages 903-906 (2012).

Brücher BLDM, Piso P, Verwaal V et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: overview and basics. Cancer Invest.30(3),209–224 (2012).

Brücher BLDM, Swisher S, Königsrainer A et al. Response to preoperative therapy in upper gastrointestinal cancers. Ann. Surg. Oncol.16(4),878–886 (2009).

Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer47(1),207–214 (1981).

Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. 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(3),205–216 (2000).

Brücher BLDM, Becker K, Lordick F et al. The clinical impact of histopathological response assessment by residual tumor cell quantification in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer106(10),2119–2127 (2006).

Read Full Post »