Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
Researchers are taking advantage of small, transparent zebrafish embryos and larvae—and a special strain of see-through adults—to understand the development and spread of cancer.
By Joan K. Heath, David Langenau, Kirsten C. Sadler, and Richard White | April 1, 2013
LOOKING INSIDE DISEASE: The wild-type zebrafish larva on the left is stained for the two neuronal proteins (green) and membrane-trafficking proteins expressed near synapses (blue). On the right, the neurons of a transgenic zebrafish larva produce the dementia-associated Tau protein (red), a disease-specific form of which is stained in blue. Tubulin is stained in green.
COURTESY OF DOMINIK PAQUET, THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, USA
From frogs to dogs and people, cancer wreaks havoc across the animal kingdom—and fish are no exception. Coral trout, for example, develop melanoma from overexposure to sun, just as humans do. Rainbow trout develop liver cancer in response to environmental toxins. And zebrafish—small, striped fish indigenous to the rivers of India and a widely used model organism—are susceptible to both malignant and benign tumors of the brain, nervous system, blood, liver, pancreas, skin, muscle, and intestine.
Importantly, tumors that arise in the same organs in humans and fish look and behave alike, and the cancers often share common genetic underpinnings. As a result, most researchers believe that the basic mechanisms underlying tumor formation are conserved across species, allowing them to study the formation, expansion, and spread of tumors in animal models with the hope of eventually finding new insights into cancer in people.
Zebrafish are an increasingly popular choice among cancer biologists. Between 1995 and 2012, there was a 10-fold increase in the number of yearly PubMed citations of cancer studies in the species, with more than 200 research papers published last year. Although dwarfed by cancer studies using human tissue and mouse models, the optical transparency of zebrafish embryos and larvae—and now, adult fish of a recently created strain—allows researchers to track tumors in a way that is not possible in other vertebrate models. Furthermore, their small size—embryos are small enough to be reared in 96-well plates—make them a more practical laboratory system than other cancer models. Indeed, researchers are now using these fish to identify druggable oncogenic drivers of specific tumor types, to tease apart the complex network of cancer genes that cooperate in tumor formation and progression, to probe the interplay between the genes that govern embryonic development and those that cause cancer, and to uncover how tumors metastasize and kill their host. The zebrafish model offers a major opportunity to discover important pathways underlying cancer and to identify novel therapies in high-throughput drug screens in a way that mice never could.
The zebrafish toolbox
Zebrafish (Danio rerio) have fast made their way from pet stores and home aquaria into research laboratories worldwide. Their weekly matings produce 100 to 200 embryos that rapidly and synchronously march through embryonic development, so that within 5 days of fertilization, they are mature, feeding larvae. Zebrafish are small and inexpensive to maintain in high numbers, facilitating large-scale experimentation and cheap in vivo drug screens. Famously, the fish are transparent during early larval stages, allowing investigators to directly observe internal development and making the fish a favorite of developmental biologists since the 1960s. But in recent years, the utility of zebrafish has been proven beyond developmental fields, and they are now being found in more and more laboratories studying behavior, diabetes, heart disease, regeneration, stem cell biology—and cancer.
Critically, zebrafish can be used to identify the important pathways and processes that cause cancer in people. Common organ systems and cell types are shared between human and zebrafish, and whether induced by transgenesis or carcinogens, cancers arising from the blood (leukemia and lymphoma), pigmented cells of the skin (melanoma), and the cells that line the bile ducts (cholangiocarcinoma) have microscopic features that are essentially indistinguishable between humans and zebrafish.
The zebrafish model offers a major opportunity to discover important pathways underlying cancer and to identify novel therapies in high-throughput drug screens, in a way that mice never could.
Comparing gene-expression profiles of tumors across various species provides a powerful mechanism for identifying genes that likely represent core functions of cancer. For example, microarray gene-expression analyses have compared the gene signatures of fish hepatocellular carcinoma to that of human liver, gastric, prostate, and lung tumors. Remarkably, this analysis revealed that fish and human liver tumors are more similar to each other than either tumor type is to human tumors derived from different tissues. Moreover, comparative studies can often be used to pinpoint pathways that are active in human disease. This is illustrated by work on a zebrafish model of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), a cancer of skeletal muscle, which revealed a gene signature that is also commonly found in human RMS, highlighting the importance of the RAS signaling pathway in the genesis of human RMS.1
A window into cancer
In 2003, the laboratory of A. Thomas Look at Children’s Hospital Boston was the first to realize the long-held dream of following the behavior of cancer cells as they initiate tumor growth and invade structures within live animals. Specifically, the researchers engineered leukemia-afflicted T cells to express green fluorescent protein (GFP) and visualized cancer onset within the zebrafish thymus.2 Moreover, these GFP-positive tumor cells were transplantable into recipient fish, a hallmark of the malignant cell type. Following up on this work, several researchers have now begun transplanting fluorescently labeled human cancer cells into zebrafish larvae to visualize tumor growth and spread in a manner not achievable in more common mouse xenograft models.
Capitalizing on the lack of an acquired immune system during larval stages and the ability to rear zebrafish at temperatures that mimic the human core temperature, Stefania Nicoli of the University of Brescia in Italy and colleagues implanted human cancer cells expressing high levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) into zebrafish larvae with GFP-labeled blood vessels.3 VEGF is a factor commonly produced by growing cancers and is responsible for coaxing blood vessels to invade the developing tumor. Nicoli’s work allowed the direct visualization of vasculature remodeling and new vessel formation—and showed that it could be blocked by the addition of VEGF-inhibitory drugs to the water in which the larvae lived. Using similar approaches, many laboratories have successfully engrafted human cancer cells from a range of tumor types into zebrafish embryos.
Researchers have also used zebrafish to visualize the role of tumor heterogeneity within cancer over time. Work from one of our labs (David Langenau’s) has utilized a model of RAS-induced RMS to fluorescently label tumor cells based on differentiation status. This allowed the team to watch the never-before-visualized birth of cancer—the acquisition of invasive properties by normal muscle stem cells and the breakdown of normal muscle architecture, clearing the way for continued tumor expansion. The researchers also characterized two molecularly distinct cell populations, one that is responsible for tumor growth and another that drives cancer spread or metastasis. (See photos below—Imaging Blood Cancers; Solid Tumor Development.)
SEE-THROUGH SUBJECTS: Zebrafish embryos (bottom right), shown here at 28 hours, are naturally transparent, as are zebrafish larvae (bottom left) until around 3 weeks of age. A new strain of zebrafish, called casper, maintains its transparency into adulthood (top right), allowing researchers to observe cancer formation in adult fish. A wall of tanks (top left) at the Zebrafish Resource Center, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
T-cell leukemia and RMS are pediatric diseases, favoring cancer development in early larval stages of these zebrafish models. However, cancer is predominantly a disease that affects adults, and zebrafish lose their transparency at around 3 weeks of age. To visualize tumor formation in older zebrafish, one of us (Richard White) and Len Zon of Children’s Hospital Boston have developed a strain of zebrafish called casper, which lacks pigment and is optically clear into adulthood.4 (See photo here.) Using these animals, investigators have implanted pigmented melanomas and witnessed local spread and metastasis over time. First described in 2008, casper is now the zebrafish strain of choice for imaging studies in the field.
Zebrafish have truly proven to be ideal organisms for visualizing cancer; there is no other animal system that allows researchers to literally watch tumors grow and spread. Because we can follow cells as they escape from the primary tumor, migrate, and form metastases in a variety of organs, zebrafish provide an unsurpassed model to describe the distinct steps of cancer progression, and researchers using this model are already contributing much to our understanding of cancer.
Screening for drugs
In terms of drug discovery, zebrafish have emerged as the only vertebrate organism amenable to high-throughput and high-content chemical screening in vivo. The small size of freshly hatched zebrafish embryos means that up to 20 embryos can be dispensed into the individual wells of a 96-well plate, thereby providing a platform for the robotic delivery and testing of hundreds or thousands of compounds in living animals. Because of the parallels between embryonic development and cancer, compounds producing changes in the growth or proliferation of developing organs may also be relevant to cancer. However, to more directly search for small molecules capable of putting the brakes on cancerous growth, researchers are turning to several established tumor-prone zebrafish lines.
One prominent success from such endeavors is the identification of a drug to treat melanoma. Like human melanoma skin lesions, zebrafish melanomas exhibit a gene-expression signature characteristic of the embryonic neural crest, a multipotent group of stem cells that give rise to dozens of cell types, including pigmented skin cells called melanocytes. The genes in this signature, including sox10 and mitf, were hypothesized to be important for melanoma growth, so in 2011 White and Zon performed an in vivo screen to identify small molecules that suppressed the expression of these neural crest genes in developing embryos.5 After screening 2,000 molecules, they identified leflunomide, an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Importantly, leflunomide was then found to inhibit the growth of both zebrafish and human melanoma xenografts in vivo, and the drug moved from discovery to Phase 1/2 trials in only 4 years, demonstrating just how quickly discoveries in zebrafish can have clinical impact. Similar efforts to discover novel modulators of leukemia growth have recently been reported to work in both fish and humans, suggesting that this approach will be broadly applicable to a wide range of solid and liquid tumors.
Probing the cancer genome
The genesis of cancer generally depends on the inactivation of one or more tumor suppressor genes in conjunction with signaling from oncogenes. Indeed, rapid advances in sequencing technologies and efforts such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) have revealed surprisingly few “driver” mutations capable of causing cancer alone. Instead, TCGA and other sequencing studies have identified vast genetic heterogeneity both across and within tumor types, with mutations extending well beyond genes likely to represent classical oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. How these mutations influence tumor growth remains a major unanswered question in cancer biology.
IMAGING BLOOD CANCERS: Developing T lymphocytes in the thymus of a transgenic zebrafish (top right) express green fluorescent protein (GFP). A transgenic zebrafish (bottom right) that coexpresses the Myc oncogene with GFP shows signs of prominent leukemia, which has spread well beyond the boundaries of the thymus (T).
COURTESY OF DAVID LANGENAU
Enter zebrafish, and a range of high-throughput reverse-genetic techniques for cancer gene discovery. By transiently overexpressing each of 30 candidate genes in zebrafish larvae, for example, Craig Ceol and Yariv Houvras in Zon’s group identified a single cooperating oncogene, SETDB1, as a new player in melanoma.6 In this study, the researchers created and analyzed more than 3,000 transgenic animals. Because they used a transposon-based transgenic approach that leads to high-level, uniform expression, they could directly assess how the injected genes affected tumor onset without going through the lengthy process of germline transgenics, a major bottleneck in mouse genetics. This rapid screening approach is a prime example of how the mountains of data generated by TCGA can be quickly assessed for biological function, and zebrafish are the only in vivo whole-animal vertebrate system that enables researchers to rapidly sift through these data to understand which mutations drive cancer.
Other new approaches are advancing loss-of-function analyses. Until recently, such studies relied on TiLLING (targeting induced local lesions in genomes), in which a chemical carcinogen, ethylnitrosourea (ENU), introduces point mutations throughout the genome and high-throughput methods then look for mutations in genes of interest. This method yielded several valuable strains of tumor-prone zebrafish harboring clinically relevant mutations in the well-known tumor-suppressor genes p53, apc, and pten, and these have been pivotal to the development of multiple zebrafish cancer models. However, the unbiased nature of ENU mutagenesis makes TiLLING a labor-intensive and impractical business in most laboratory settings. Instead, precision editing of the genome has emerged as the method of choice for the systematic creation of knockout and mutant animals. Specifically, homology-based editing, using TALENs (transcription activator–like effector nucleases) and, more recently, CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas systems, has revolutionized the field.7,8 Using relatively simple procedures, virtually any gene can now be mutated in zebrafish, allowing for very large-scale, in vivo assessments of novel cancer genes and the analysis of interacting mutations—one of the greatest challenges facing the cancer field in the coming decade.
SOLID TUMOR DEVELOPMENT: A transgenic zebrafish (bottom left) with fluorescent-labeled RAS-induced rhabdomyosacoma. Green fluorescent protein is expressed in the tumor-propagating cells, which drive continued tumor growth. Red fluorescent protein is localized to the nucleus and expressed in myoblast-like cells, while blue fluorescent protein is confined to terminally differentiated cancer cells that express myosin (magnified image, bottom right). Live-cell imaging permits dynamic visualization of the birth of cancer and the functional consequences of tumor cell heterogeneity within established tumors.
COURTESY OF DAVID LANGENAU
To complement approaches that directly inactivate genes within the genome, strategies to achieve interference RNA-mediated gene silencing in zebrafish have come of age as well. Expression of short hairpin RNAs, for example, have produced stable and tissue-specific knockdown in cancer-related genes such as chordin and wnt5b.9,10 Because of the ease of manipulating the genome as well as the large number of well-characterized zebrafish gene promoters, such strategies immediately afford the opportunity to knockdown known gene functions in a tissue-specific fashion, and it is likely that temporal control will be readily achievable as well.
In all, combining the descriptive data from TCGA with zebrafish transgenesis, high-throughput overexpression and knockout techniques, and unbiased genetic screens offers an unprecedented opportunity to functionally probe the cancer genome.
The future of the field
Given its power for imaging, transplantation, small-molecule screens, and high-throughput transgenesis, the zebrafish model should become a major platform for deeply interrogating cancer biology in vivo over the next decade. One major area where zebrafish are particularly valuable is in teasing apart the extreme complexity of cancer. Because combinations of genetic pathways can be assessed simultaneously, potentially dozens of genomic alterations found in human cancer could be tested for their effects in the fish, allowing us to sort biologically meaningful alterations from neutral ones. These techniques will also allow us to understand how numerous small changes, which on their own have little phenotypic effect, can combine to cause cancer.
The success of the field will depend upon improved funding for zebrafish cancer research, however. Currently, only a small fraction of National Institutes of Health RO1 grants for cancer research are awarded for zebrafish studies, with the vast majority going to work in mice, humans, and human cells. Consortium efforts analogous to the Mouse Model Consortium will be necessary to develop more faithful zebrafish models of human cancer, which can then be used as the basis for further screens. Whereas mouse models of cancer have delivered great insights into the biological mechanisms underlying human malignancy, we view zebrafish models as a springboard for the rapid launch of unbiased genetic and chemical screens.
With any cancer model, bridging the gap between the animals and human patients is the ultimate proof of its utility. For the zebrafish, this can occur not only through bringing drugs to the clinic, but also in the development of novel biomarkers and early detection methods. The next 10 years will be an exciting time, and we have great confidence that the zebrafish will contribute major discoveries to the treatment of human cancers.
Joan K. Heath is an associate professor in the ACRF Chemical Biology Division at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and the Department of Medical Biology at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where her laboratory is studying the genetic regulation of intestinal organogenesis and colorectal cancer.
David Langenau, an assistant professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, studies the mechanisms that drive pediatric cancer relapse within the Molecular Pathology Unit and the Cancer Center at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Kirsten C. Sadler is an assistant professor in the Division of Liver Diseases/Department of Medicine and in Developmental and Regenerative Biology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, where she studies the mechanisms of liver development, regeneration, and cancer.
Richard White is an assistant professor at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. His laboratory studies the evolutionary mechanisms by which tumors develop the capacity for metastasis.
Imaging Guided Cancer-Therapy – a Discipline in Need of Guidance
Author – Writer: Dror Nir, PhD
Article 11.2.11 Imaging Guided Cancer Therapy a Discipline in Need of Guidance
The use of imaging in cancer management is broadly established. During the past two decades, advancements in imaging; image quality, precision and reproducibility lead to introduction of localized, minimally invasive treatments of cancer lesions.
A statement-paper, published online: 17 January 2013: Radiologists’ leading position in image-guided therapy, which presents the thoughts of the Image-Guided Therapy Working Group within the Research Committee of the European Society of Radiology, give hope that the policy-makers in the European radiology society are becoming aware of the need to guide this process.
Although the authors are addressing imaging guided therapy (IGT) in its broad sense, most of their examples are related to treatment of cancer. The main reason for provided for being concerned with what is happening in this domain is: “This means that the planning, performing and monitoring, as well as the control of the therapeutic procedure, are based and dependent on the “virtual reality” provided by imaging investigations.”
The most interesting points raised by the authors are:
1. The realization that IGT is involving many “non-radiologist”, and this fact cannot be ignored: “This role is mainly driven by the sophisticated opportunities offered by medical computing and radiological image guidance with regard to precision and minimal invasiveness [2]. However, the impact of radiology on the regulatory medico-legal, technical and radioprotection issues in this field have not yet been defined. Since an increasing number of procedures will probably be performed by non-radiologists, several main questions have to be addressed:
How should the radiology training requirements for non-radiologists be provided?
How should the technical and radioprotection related responsibilities for radiological imaging systems used by non-radiologists be organised?
How should radiologists be involved in the practical routine use of non-radiological image-guided procedures in clinical practice?
Considering the almost pan-European medical reality with decreasing staff resources and increasing diversification and subspecialisation, radiologists have to stress the fact that within a cooperative, goal-oriented and multidisciplinary environment, the specialty-specific knowledge should confer upon radiologists a significant impact on the overall responsibility for all imaging-related processes in various non-radiological specialties (such as purchase, servicing, quality management, radiation protection and documentation). Furthermore, radiologists should take responsibility for the definition and compliance with the legal requirements regarding all radiological imaging, especially if non-radiologists have to be trained in the use of imaging technology for guidance of therapy.”
2. Quality assurance and service standards needs to be established; “Performing IGT necessitates specific quality management tools for establishing standards and maintaining levels of excellence…. A European task force group on IGT might be necessary to further develop certification guidelines and establish requirements for IGT practice according to known standards, focused on common recommendations and certification guidelines.”
3. Controlling the process of introducing new medical devices into this niche-market: “IGT research can be broadly divided into two categories, target specific research (e.g. the type of tumour or vascular lesion by imaging biomarkers) and technical research (e.g. evaluation of a new device or procedure). Understanding the efficacy and application of new and emerging technologies is a critical first step, which then leads to target-specific research. The focus of this research is aimed at understanding when, where and in whom the therapy can provide clear clinical benefit and how to use IGT in conjunction with, or as an alternative to, more established therapies. This also clearly includes research on the development and implementation of imaging biomarkers, defined as objectively measured indicators of normal biological processes, pathological changes, or responses to a therapeutic intervention [9]…..
4. An unusual remark is made in respect to the way new devices are introduced: “Clinical specialists who lack the knowledge and expertise required to champion IGT and who are often already over-committed in pursuing their own research goals often dominate committees in control of other funding streams….”
5. Clear recognition that “health-care costs” is of outmost importance: “Demonstration of the cost effectiveness of IGT methods of treatment and targeting with formal quantification of financial as well as patient benefit would encourage their wider adoption. In a broad perspective, health technology assessment (HTA) might be the way for the systematic evaluation of health-relevant IGT procedures and methods, the effectiveness, safety and economic viability of a health intervention, as well as its social, ethical, legal and organisational effects; and for providing a basis for decisions in the health system.”
Council Directive 97/43 Euratom, on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466 Euratom, 1997
4.
DIMOND. Measures for optimising radiological information and dose in digital imaging and interventional radiology. European Commission. Fifth Framework Programme. 1998–2002
5.
SENTINEL. Safety and efficacy for new techniques and imaging using new equipment to support European legislation. European Coordination Action. 2005–2007
UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and effects of ionising radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes
8.
The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection
9.
European Society of Radiology (2010) White paper on imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 1(2):42–45CrossRef
Personalized Medicine: Clinical Aspiration of Microarrays
Reporter, Writer: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
In this month’s Science, Mike May (at http://www.sciencemag.org/site/products/lst_20130215.xhtml) describes some of the challenges and successes in introducing microarray analysis to the clinical setting. Traditionally used for investigational research, microarray is now being developed, customized and used for biomarker analysis, prognostic and predictive value, in a disease-specific manner.
Challenges in data interpretation
In an interview with Seth Crosby, director of the Genome Technology Access Center at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, “the biggest challenge” in moving microarray to the clinical setting is data interpretation. The current technology makes it possible to evaluate expression of thousands of genes from a patient’s sample however as Crosby describes is assigning clinical relevance to the data. For example Crosby explains that Washington University had validated a panel of 45 oncology genes by next generation sequencing and are using these genes to develop diagnostic tests to screen patient tumors for the purpose of determining a personalized therapeutic strategy. Seth Crosby noted it took “hundreds of Ph.D. and M.D. hours” to sift through the hundreds of papers to determine which genes were relevant to a specific cancer type. However, he notes, that once we better understand which changes in the patient’s genome are related to a specific disease we will be able to narrow down the list and be able to produce both economical and more disease-relevant microarrays.
Is this aberration pathogenic or not?
Microarrays are becoming an invaluable tool in cytogenetics, as eluded by Andy Last, executive vice president of the genetic analysis business unit atAffymetrix. Certain diseases like Down syndrome have well characterized chromosomal alterations like additions or deletions of parts or entire chromosomes. According to Affymetrix, the most common use of microarrays is for determining copy number variation. However according to James Clough, vice president of clinical and genomic services at Oxford Gene Technology, given the hundreds of syndromes associated with chromosomal rearrangements, the challenge will be to determine if a small chromosomal aberration has pathologic significance, given that microarray affords much higher diagnostic yield and speed of analysis than traditional microscopic techniques. To address this challenge, Oxford Gene Technologies, PerkinElmer, Affymetrix, and Agilent all have custom designed microarrays to evaluate disease specific copy number and SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) microarrays. For example PerkinElmer designed OncoChip™ to evaluate copy number variation in more than 1.800 cancer genes. Agilent makes microarrays that evaluates both copy number variation such as its CGH (comparative genomic hybridization) plus SNP microarrays. Patricia Barco, product manager for cytogenetics at Agilent, notes these arrays can be used in prenatal and postnatal research and cancer, and “can be customized from more than 28 million probes in our library”.
Custom Tools and Software to Handle the Onslaught of Big Data
There is a need for FDA approved diagnostic tools based on microarrays. Pathwork Diagnostic’s has one such tool (the Pathwork Tissue of Origin test), which uses 2,000 transcript markers and a proprietary computational algorithm to determine from expression analysis, the tissue of origin of a patient’s tumor. Pathwork also provides a fast, custom turn-around analytical service for pathologists who encounter difficult to interpret samples. Illumina provides the Infinium HumanCore BeadChip family of microarrays, which can determine genetic variations for purposes of biological tissue banking. This system uses a set of over 300,000 SNP probes plus 240,000 exome-based markers.
Tools have also been developed to validate microarray results. A common validation strategy is the use of quantitative real-time PCR to verify the expression changes seen on the microarray. Life Technologies developed the TaqMan OpenArray Real Time PCR plates, which have 3,072 wells and can be custom-formatted using their library of eight million validated TaqMan assays.
Making Sense of the Big Data: Bridging the Knowledge Gap using Bioinformatics
The use of microarray has spurned industries devoted to developing the bioinformatics software to analyze the massive amounts of data and provide clinical significance. For example companies such as Expression Analysis use their bioinformatics software to provide pathway analysis for microarray data in order to translate the data into the biology. Using such strategies can also validate the design of microarrays for various diseases.
Foundation Medicine, Inc., a molecular information company, provides cancer genomics test solutions. It offers FoundationOne, an informative genomic profile to identify a patient’s individual molecular alterations and match them with relevant targeted therapies and clinical trials. The company’s product enables physicians to recommend treatment options for patients based on the molecular subtype of their cancer.
Cancer research has rapidly embraced high throughput technologies into its research, using various microarray, tissue array, and next generation sequencing platforms. The result has been a rapid increase in cancer data output and data types. Now more than ever, having the bioinformatic skills and knowledge of available bioinformatic resources specific to cancer is critical. The CBW will host a 5-day workshop covering the key bioinformatics concepts and tools required to analyze cancer genomic data sets. Participants will gain experience in genomic data visualization tools which will be applied throughout the development of the skills required to analyze cancer -omic data for gene expression, genome rearrangement, somatic mutations and copy number variation. The workshop will conclude with analyzing and conducting pathway analysis on the resultant cancer gene list and integration of clinical data.
Successful Examples of Clinical Ventures Integrating Bioinformatics in Cancer Treatment Decision –Making
The University of Pavia, Italy developed a fully integrated oncology bioinformatics workflow as described on their website and at the ESMO 2012 Congress meeting:
ONCO-I2B2 PROJECT: A BIOINFORMATICS TOOL INTEGRATING –OMICS AND CLINICAL DATA TO SUPPORT TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Abstract:
2530
Congress:
ESMO 2012
Type:
Abstract
Topic:
Translational research
Authors:
A. Zambelli, D. Segagni, V. Tibollo, A. Dagliati, A. Malovini, V. Fotia, S. Manera, R. Bellazzi; Pavia/IT
Body
The ONCO-i2b2 project, supported by the University of Pavia and the Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri (FSM), aims at supporting translational research in oncology and exploits the software solutions implemented by the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) research centre, an initiative funded by the NIH Roadmap National Centres for Biomedical Computing. The ONCO-i2b2 software is designed to integrate the i2b2 infrastructure with the FSM hospital information system and the Bruno Boerci Biobank, in order to provide well-characterized cancer specimens along with an accurate patients clinical data-base. The i2b2 infrastructure provides a web-based access to all the electronic medical records of cancer patients, and allow researchers analyzing the vast amount of biological and clinical information, relying on a user-friendly interface. Data coming from multiple sources are integrated and jointly queried.
In 2011 at AIOM Meeting we reported the preliminary experience of the ONCO-i2b2 project, now we’re able to present the up and running platform and the extended data set. Currently, more than 4400 specimens are stored and more than 600 of breast cancer patients give the consent for the use of specimens in the context of clinical research, in addition, more than 5000 histological reports are stored in order to integrate clinical data.
Within the ONCO-i2b2 project is possible to query and merge data regarding:
• Anonymous patient personal data;
• Diagnosis and therapy ICD9-CM subset from the hospital information system;
• Histological data (tumour SNOMED and TNM codes) and receptor profile testing (Her2, Ki67) from anatomic pathology database;
• Specimen molecular characteristics (DNA, RNA, blood, plasma and cancer tissues) from the Bruno Boerci Biobank management system.
The research infrastructure will be completed by the development of new set of components designed to enhance the ability of an i2b2 hive to utilize data generated by NGS technology, providing a mechanism to apply custom genomic annotations. The translational tool created at FSM is a concrete example regarding how the integration of different information from heterogeneous sources could bring scientific research closer to understand the nature of disease itself and to create novel diagnostics through handy interfaces.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Cancer Bioinformatics: Recovery Act Investment Report
November 2009
Public Health Burden of Cancer
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease. In 2009, it is estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cases of invasive cancer will be diagnosed in this country and more than 560,000 people will die of the disease.
Over the past five years, NCI’s Center for Biomedical Informatics and Information Technology (CBIIT) has led the effort to develop and deploy the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid® (caBIG) in partnership with the broader cancer community. The caBIG network is designed to enable the integration and exchange of data among researchers in the laboratory and the clinic, simplify collaboration, and realize the potential of information-based (personalized) medicine in improving patient outcomes. caBIG has connected major components of the cancer community, including NCI-designated Cancer Centers, participating institutions of the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP), and numerous large-scale scientific endeavors, as well as basic, translational, and clinical researchers at public and private institutions across the United States and around the world. Beyond cancer research, caBIG capabilities—infrastructure, standards, and tools—provide a prototype for linking other disease communities and catalyzing a new 21st-century biomedical ecosystem that unifies research and care. ARRA funding will allow NCI to accelerate the ongoing development of the Cancer Knowledge Cloud and Oncology Electronic Health Records (EHRs) initiatives, thereby providing for continued job creation in the areas of biomedical informatics development and application as well as healthcare delivery.
The caBIG Cancer Knowledge Cloud: Extending the Research Infrastructure
The Cancer Knowledge Cloud is a virtual biomedical capability that utilizes caBIG tools, infrastructure, and security frameworks to integrate distributed individual and organizational data, software applications, and computational capacity throughout the broad cancer research and treatment community. The Cancer Knowledge Cloud connects, integrates, and facilitates sharing of the diverse primary data generated through basic and clinical research and care delivery to enable personalized medicine. The cloud includes information generated through large-scale research projects such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), the cancer Human Biobank (caHUB) tissue acquisition network, the NCI Functional Biology Consortium, the NCI Patient Characterization Center, and the NCI Preclinical Development Pipeline, academic and industry counterparts to these projects, and clinical observations (from entities such as the NCCCP) captured in oncology-extended Electronic Health Records. Through the use of the caBIG Data Sharing and Security Framework, the Cloud will support appropriate sharing of information, supporting in silico hypothesis generation and testing, and enabling a learning healthcare system.
A caBIG-Based Rapid-Learning Healthcare System: Incorporating Oncology-Extended Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs)
The 21st-century Cancer Knowledge Cloud will connect individuals, organizations, institutions, and their associated information within an information technology-enabled cycle of discovery, development, and clinical care—the paradigm of a rapid-learning healthcare system. This will transform these disconnected sectors into a system that is personalized, preventive, pre-emptive, and patient-participatory. To be realized, this model requires the adoption of standards-based EHRs. Presently, however, no certified oncology-based EHR exists, and fewer than 3 percent of oncologists with outpatient-based practices utilize EHRs. caBIG has recently established a collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to develop an oncology-specific EHR (caEHR) specification based on open standards already in use in the oncology community that will utilize caBIG standards for interoperability. NCI will implement an open-source version of this specification to validate the specification and to provide a free alternative to sites that choose not to purchase a commercial system. The launch customer for the caEHR will be NCCCP participating sites. NCI will work with appropriate entities to provide a mechanism for certifying that caEHR implementations are consistent with the NCI/ASCO specification.
Bards Cancer Institute has another clinical bioinformatics program to support their clinical efforts:
Clinical Bioinformatics Program in Oncology at Barts Cancer Institute at Barts and the London School of Medicine
Bioinformatics is a new interdisciplinary area involving biological, statistical and computational sciences. Bioinformatics will enable cancer researchers not only to manage, analyze, mine and understand the currently accumulated, valuable, high-throughput data, but also to integrate these in their current research programs. The need for bioinformatics will become ever more important as new technologies increase the already exponential rate at which cancer data are generated.
What we do
We work alongside clinical and basic scientists to support the cancer projects within BCI. This is an ideal partnership between scientific experts, who know the research questions that will be relevant from a cancer biologist or clinician’s perspective, and bioinformatics experts, who know how to develop the proposed methods to provide answers.
We also conduct independent bioinformatics research, focusing on the development of computational and integrative methods, algorithms, databases and tools to tackle the analysis of the high volumes of cancer data.
We also are actively involved in the development of bioinformatics educational courses at BCI. Our courses offer a unique opportunity for biologists to gain a basic understanding in the use of bioinformatics methods to access and harness large complicated high-throughput data and uncover meaningful information that could be used to understand molecular mechanisms and develop novel targeted therapeutics/diagnostic tools.
Developing Criteria for Genomic Profiling in Lung Cancer:
A Report from U.S. Cancer Centers
In a report by Pao et. al., a group of clinicians organized a meeting to standardize some protocols for the integration of microarray and genomic data from lung cancer patients into the clinical setting.[1] There has been ample evidence that adenocarcinomas could be classified into “clinically relevant molecular subsets” based on distinct genomic changes. For example EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) exon 19 deletions and exon 21 point mutations predict sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) like gefitinib, whereas exon 20 insertions predict primary resistance[2].
However, as the authors note, “mutational profiling has not been widely accepted or adopted into practice in thoracic oncology”.
Therefore, a multi-institutional workshop was held in 2009 among participants from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), the Dana-Farber/Bingham & Women’s Cancer Center (DF/BWCC), the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (VICC), and the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) to discuss their institutes molecular profiling programs with emphasis on:
·Organization/workflow
·Mutation detection technologies
·Clinical protocols and reporting
·Patient consent
In addition to the aforementioned challenges, the panel discussed further issues for developing improved science-driven criteria for determining targeted therapies including:
1)Including pathologists into criteria development as pathology departments are usually the main repositories for specimens
2)Developing integrated informatics systems
3)Standardizing new target validation methodology across cancer centers
AMPK Is a Negative Regulator of the Warburg Effect and Suppresses Tumor Growth In Vivo
Reporter-Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Word Cloud by Daniel Menzin
There has been a causal link between alterations in cellular metabolism and the cancer phenotype. Reorganization of cellular metabolism, marked by a shift from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis for cellular energy requirements (Warburg effect), is considered a hallmark of the transformed cell. In addition, if tumors are to survive and grow, cancer cells need to adapt to environments high in metabolic stress and to avoid programmed cell death (apoptosis). Recently, a link between cancer growth and metabolism has been supported by the discovery that the LKB1/AMPK signaling pathway as a tumor suppressor axis[1].
LKB1/AMPK/mTOR Signaling Pathway
The Liver Kinase B1 (LKB1)/AMPK AMP-activated protein kinase/mammalian Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling pathway links cellular metabolism and energy status to pathways involved in cell growth, proliferation, adaption to energy stress, and autophagy. LKB1 is a master control for 14 other kinases including AMPK, a serine-threonine kinase which senses cellular AMP/ATP ratios. In response to cellular starvation, AMPK is allosterically activated by AMP, leading to activation of ATP-generating pathways like fatty acid oxidation and blocking anabolic pathways, like lipid and cholesterol synthesis (which consume ATP). In addition, AMPK regulates cell growth, proliferation, and autophagy by regulating the mTOR pathway. AMPK activates the tuberous sclerosis complex 1/2, which ultimately inhibits mTORC1 activity and inhibits protein translation. This mTOR activity is dis-regulated in many cancers.
LKB1/AMPK in Cancer
Somatic mutations of the STK11 gene encoding LKB1 are detected in lung and cervical cancers
Therefore LKB1 may be a strong tumor suppressor
Pharmacologic activation of LKB1/AMPK with metformin can suppress cancer cell growth
In a recent Cell Metabolism paper[2], Brandon Faubert and colleagues describe how AMPK activity reduces aerobic glycolysis and tumor proliferation while loss of AMPK activity promotes tumor proliferation by shifting cells to aerobic glycolysis and increasing anabolic pathways in a HIF1-dependent manner.
The paper’s major findings were as follows:
Loss of AMPKα1 cooperates with the Myc oncogene to accelerate lymphomagenesis
Inhibiting HIF-1α reverses the metabolic effects of AMPKα loss
HIF-1α mediates the growth advantage of tumors with reduced AMPK signaling
Summary
AMPK is a metabolic sensor that helps maintain cellular energy homeostasis. Despite evidence linking AMPK with tumor suppressor functions, the role of AMPK in tumorigenesis and tumor metabolism is unknown. Here we show that AMPK negatively regulates aerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect) in cancer cells and suppresses tumor growth in vivo. Genetic ablation of the α1 catalytic subunit of AMPK accelerates Myc-induced lymphomagenesis. Inactivation of AMPKα in both transformed and nontransformed cells promotes a metabolic shift to aerobic glycolysis, increased allocation of glucose carbon into lipids, and biomass accumulation. These metabolic effects require normoxic stabilization of the hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α), as silencing HIF-1α reverses the shift to aerobic glycolysis and the biosynthetic and proliferative advantages conferred by reduced AMPKα signaling. Together our findings suggest that AMPK activity opposes tumor development and that its loss fosters tumor progression in part by regulating cellular metabolic pathways that support cell growth and proliferation.
Below is the graphical abstract of this paper.
(Photo credit reference(2; Faubert et. al) permission from Elsevier)
However, this regulation of tumor promotion by AMPK may be more complicated and dependent on the cellular environment.
Nissam Hay from the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA and his co-workers Sang-Min Jeon and Navdeep Chandel were investigating the mechanism through which LKB1/AMPK regulate the balance between cancer cell growth and apoptosis under energy stress[3]. In their system, the loss of function of either of these proteins makes cells more sensitive to apoptosis in low glucose environments, and cells deficient in either AMPK or LKB1 were shown to be resistant to oncogenic transformation. Whereas previous studies showed (as above) AMPK opposes tumor proliferation in a HIF1-dependent manner, their results showed AMPK could promote tumor cell survival during periods of low glucose or altered redox status.
The researchers incubated LKB1-deficient cancer cells in the presence of either glucose or one of the non-metabolizable glucose analogues 2-deoxyglucose (2DG) and 5-thioglucose (5TG), and found that 2DG, but not 5TG, induced the activation of AMPK and protected the cells from apoptosis, even in cells that were deficient in LKB1.
The authors demonstrated that glucose deprivation depleted NADPH levels, increased H2O2 levels and increased cell death, and that this was accelerated in cells deficient in the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. Anti-oxidants were also found to inhibit cell death in cells deficient in either AMPK or LKB1.
Knockdown or knockout of either LKB1 or AMPK in cancer cells significantly increased levels of H2O2 but not of peroxide (O2–) during glucose depletion. The glucose analogue 2DG was able to activate AMPK and maintain high levels of NADPH and low levels of H2O2 in these cells.
The nucleotide coenzyme NADPH is generated in the pentose phosphate pathway and mitochondrial metabolism, and consumed in H2O2 elimination and fatty acid synthesis. If glucose is limited mitochondrial metabolism becomes the major source of NADPH, supported by fatty acid oxidation. AMPK is known to be a regulator of fatty acid metabolism through inhibition of two acetyl-CoA carboxylases, ACC1 and ACC2.
Short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) to knock down levels of both ACC1 and ACC2 in A549 cancer cells and found that only ACC2 knockdown significantly increased peroxide accumulation and apoptosis, while over-expression of mutant ACC1 and ACC2 in LKB1-proficient cells increased H2O2 and apoptosis.
Therefore, it was concluded AMPK acts to promote early tumor growth and prevent apoptosis in conditions of energy stress through inhibiting acetyl-CoA carboxylase activity, thus maintaining NADPH levels and preventing the build-up of peroxide in glucose-deficient conditions.
This may appear to be conflicting with the previous report in this post however, it is possible that these reports reflect differences in the way cells respond to various cellular stresses, be it hypoxia, glucose deprivation, or changes in redox status. Therefore a complex situation may arise:
AMPK promotes tumor progression under glucose starvation
AMPK can oppose tumor proliferation under a normoxic, HIF1-dependent manner
Could AMPK regulation be different in cancer stem cells vs. non-stem cell?
References:
1. Green AS, Chapuis N, Lacombe C, Mayeux P, Bouscary D, Tamburini J: LKB1/AMPK/mTOR signaling pathway in hematological malignancies: from metabolism to cancer cell biology. Cell Cycle 2011, 10(13):2115-2120.
2. Faubert B, Boily G, Izreig S, Griss T, Samborska B, Dong Z, Dupuy F, Chambers C, Fuerth BJ, Viollet B et al: AMPK is a negative regulator of the Warburg effect and suppresses tumor growth in vivo. Cell metabolism 2013, 17(1):113-124.
3. Jeon SM, Chandel NS, Hay N: AMPK regulates NADPH homeostasis to promote tumour cell survival during energy stress. Nature 2012, 485(7400):661-665.
Other posts on this site related to Warburg Effect and Cancer include:
Imaging-biomarkers is Imaging-based tissue characterization
Author – Writer: Dror Nir, PhD
Article 11.1 Introduction by Dror Nir PhD
For everyone who is skeptical about the future role of imaging-based tissue chracterisation in the management of cancer, the following “Statement paper” ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers published online: 9 February 2013, by the European Society of Radiology (ESR), should provide substantial reassurance that this kind of technology will become a must! In support of this claim I quote the following information:
“The European Society of Radiology and its related European Institute for Biomedical Imaging Research (EIBIR) should have a relevant role in coordinating future developments of biomarkers and in the assessment and validation of imaging biomarkers as surrogate end points.
Acknowledgements
This paper was kindly prepared by the ESR Subcommittee on Imaging Biomarkers (Chairperson: Bernard Van Beers. Research Committee Chairperson: Luis Martí-Bonmatí. Members: Marco Essig, Thomas Helbich, Celso Matos, Wiro Niessen, Anwar Padhani, Harriet C. Thoeny, Siegfried Trattnig, Jean-Paul Vallée. Co-opted members: Peter Brader, Nicolas Grenier) on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and with the help of Sabrina Doblas, INSERM U773, Paris, France.
It was approved by the ESR Executive Council in December 2012..”
According to ESR: “There is increasing interest in developing the quantitative imaging of biomarkers in personalised medicine”. In this perspective, “Biomarkers” are tissue properties that can be quantitatively and reproducibly measured by imaging devices. One example for a major unmet need, which I found to be most interesting is the imaging-based detection of tumor invasiveness.
Quoting from the paper: ” Biomarkers are defined as “characteristics that are objectively measured and evaluated as indicators of normal biological processes, pathological processes, or pharmaceutical responses to a therapeutic intervention” [1]. Broadly, biomarkers fall into two categories: bio-specimen biomarkers, including molecular biomarkers and genetic biomarkers, and bio-signal biomarkers or imaging biomarkers. Bio-specimen biomarkers are obtained by removing a sample from a patient. Examples of these molecular biomarkers are genes and proteins detected from fluids or tissue samples. Bio-signal biomarkers remove no material from the patient, but rather detect and analyse an electromagnetic, photonic or acoustic signal emitted by the patient [2]. These imaging biomarkershave the advantage of being non-invasive, spatially resolved and repeatable [3]. They are of particular interest if they can overcome the limitations of the established histological “gold standards”. Indeed, invasive reference examinations, such as biopsy, can be inconclusive, are non-representative of the whole tissue (which is a tremendous limitation when assessing malignant tumours, which are known to be heterogeneous) and possess non-negligible levels of mortality and morbidity.
Genetic biomarkers indicate whether a disease may occur, but they are usually inefficient to assess the presence and stage of a disease. Similar to molecular biomarkers, imaging biomarkers can be used for early detection of diseases, staging and grading, and predicting or assessing the response to treatment [3]. Accordingly, because of their relative lower cost compared with imaging, molecular biomarkers may be more appropriate for disease screening and early detection than imaging biomarkers. With their high sensitivity, molecular biomarkers could also detect subclinical stages of disease before any morphological or functional change is detectable on imaging. In contrast, imaging biomarkers are often more useful than molecular biomarkers for disease staging, and also grading and for assessing tumour response, because localised information is crucial.”
The main messages ESR wishes to deliver in this paper are that:
• Using imaging-biomarkers to streamline drug discovery and disease progression will drive a huge advancement in healthcare.
• The clinical qualification and validation of imaging biomarkers technology pose challenges, mainly in establishing the accuracy and reproducibility of such techniques. In that respect, agreements on standards and evaluation methods (e.g. clinical studies design) is imperative.
• There should be high motivation to pursue the development of imaging-biomarkers as the “clinical value of new biomarkers is of the highest priority in terms of patient management, assessing risk factors and disease prognosis.”
The paper deals to a great extent with the requirements on accuracy, reproducibility, standardization and quality control from the process of developing imaging-biomarkers:
“Accuracy: Before being routinely used in the clinic, imaging biomarkers must be validated. Determining the accuracy implies calculating the sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker when compared with a biological process, such as tumour necrosis, which can be assessed at histopathological examination… [6–9] [10,11]
Reproducibility: Repeatability (measurements at short intervals on the same subjects using the same equipment in the same centres) and reproducibility (measurements at short intervals on the same subjects using different facilities in the same and different centres) studies must be conducted for image acquisition and image analysis…. Reproducibility studies are now very often included in scientific papers, as advised by the “standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy” (STARD) criteria and should ideally include Bland-Altman plots and results of coefficients of repeatability [16, 17].
Standardisation: Standardisation relates to the establishment of norms or requirements about technical aspects. In the development of imaging biomarkers, two main aspects should be considered: Standardisation of image acquisition and Standardisation of image analysis…[18][19–21][22] [27,28] [31–33]
Quality control: Adequate phantoms could be used to validate, on a day-to-day basis, that the biomarker stays robust and to avoid any drift in the machine, acquisition or processing protocol…. [34] [30, 35] [36] [37] [23].”
The proposed development workflow:
“Similar to new drugs, the development of biomarkers has to pass along a pipeline going from discovery, through verification in different laboratories, validation and qualification before they can be used in clinical routine. Validation includes the determination of the accuracy and the precision (reproducibility) of the biomarker and standardisation concerns both acquisition and analysis. Qualification, defined as a “graded, fit-for-purpose evidentiary process linking a biomarker with biological processes and clinical end-points”, is a validation process in large cohorts of patients involving multiple centres, similar to phase III clinical trials, to obtain regulatory approval as surrogate endpoints [4]. A more extensive path to biomarker development has been reported [5]. The first step is the proof of concept, which defines any specific change relevant to the disease that can be studied using the available imaging and computational techniques. The relationship between this change and the presence, grading and response to treatment of the disease constitutes the proof of mechanism. The images needed to extract the biomarker must be appropriate (in terms of resolution, signal and contrast behaviour). Preparation of images relates to improving the data before the analysis (such as segmentation, filtering, interpolation or registration). The analysis and modelling of the signal by computational numerical adjustment of a mathematical model allow extracting the needed information (such as structural, physical, chemical, biological and functional properties). After this voxel-by-voxel computation, the spatial distribution of the biomarker can be depicted by parametric images, defined as derived secondary images which pixels represent the distribution values of a given parameter. Multivariate parametric images obtained by statistical modelling of the relevant parameters allow the reduction of data and a clear definition of the defined disease target. The abnormal values should be defined and measured through histogram analysis. A pilot test on a small sample of subjects, with and without the disease, has to be performed to validate the process—also called proof of principle—and to evaluate the influence of potential variations related to age, sex or any other source of biases. Finally, proofs of efficacy and effectiveness on larger and well-defined series of patients will show the ability of a biomarker to measure the clinical endpoint (Fig. 1).”
Steps for the development of imaging biomarkers (adapted from [5])
The authors admit that the requirement posed on development of imaging-biomarkers represents a huge challenge and they try to offer ideas, mainly taken from the “MRI experience” to overcome certain hurdles. There is one important point on which they do not discuss: the definition of appropriate reference test. It is my own experience, based on many study protocols I developed in the past decade, that without reaching an agreement on that point, the development of imaging-biomarkers will just move in circles. Note, that today’s most “acceptable” reference test is histopathology, which everyone admits (as well mentioned in this paper); suffers many limitations. When it comes to validating imaging-biomarkers, the need to accurately match imaging products with histopathology is an additional major hurdle.
This is why, I see as a necessary step, to develop “real-time” imaging based tissue characterization combined with in-situ imaging-based histology.
References
1.
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group (2001) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69(3):89–95CrossRef
2.
Waterton JC, Pylkkanen L (2012) Qualification of imaging biomarkers for oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 48(4):409–415PubMedCrossRef
3.
European Society of Radiology (2010) White paper on imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 1(2):42–45CrossRef
4.
Wagner JA, Williams SA, Webster CJ (2007) Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81(1):104–107PubMedCrossRef
5.
Marti Bonmati L, Alberich-Bayarri A, Garcia-Marti G, Sanz Requena R, Pérez Castillo C, Carot Sierra JM, Herrera M (2012) Imaging biomarkers, quantitative imaging, and bioengineering. Radiol 54(3):269–278CrossRef
6.
Lewin M, Poujol-Robert A, Boelle PY et al (2007) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 46(3):658–665PubMedCrossRef
7.
Luciani A, Vignaud A, Cavet M et al (2008) Liver cirrhosis: intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging–pilot study. Radiology 249(3):891–899PubMedCrossRef
8.
Bonekamp S, Torbenson MS, Kamel IR (2011) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of liver fibrosis. J Clin Gastroenterol 45(10):885–892PubMedCrossRef
9.
Leitao HS, Doblas S, d’Assignies G, Garteiser P, Daire JL, Paradis V, Geraldes CF, Vilgrain V, Van Beers BE (2012) Fat deposition decreases diffusion parameters at MRI: a study in phantoms and patients with liver steatosis. Eur Radiol 23(2):461-467
10.
Le Bihan D, Urayama S, Aso T, Hanakawa T, Fukuyama H (2006) Direct and fast detection of neuronal activation in the human brain with diffusion MRI. PNAS 103(21):8263–8268PubMedCrossRef
11.
Xu J, Does MD, Gore JC (2011) Dependence of temporal diffusion spectra on microstructural properties of biological tissues. Magn Reson Imaging 29(3):380–390PubMedCrossRef
12.
Sinkus R, Van Beers BE, Vilgrain V, DeSouza N, Waterton JC (2012) Apparent diffusion coefficient from magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 48(4):425–431PubMedCrossRef
13.
Yablonskiy DA, Sukstanskii AL (2010) Theoretical models of the diffusion weighted MR signal. NMR Biomed 23(7):661–681PubMedCrossRef
14.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247PubMedCrossRef
15.
Padhani AR, Khan AA (2010) Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol 5(1):39–52PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 226(1):24–28PubMedCrossRef
17.
Barnhart HX, Barboriak DP (2009) Applications of the repeatability of quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical analysis of repeat data sets. Transl Oncol 2(4):231–235PubMed
18.
Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11(2):102–125PubMed
19.
Taouli B, Koh DM (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 254(1):47–66PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kwee TC, Takahara T, Koh DM, Nievelstein RA, Luijten PR (2008) Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 28(5):1141–1148PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ivancevic MK, Kwee TC, Takahara T et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 Tesla using tracking only navigator echo (TRON): a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(5):1027–1033PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zussman B, Jabbour P, Talekar K, Gorniak R, Flanders AE (2011) Sources of variability in computed tomography perfusion: implications for acute stroke management. Neurosurg Focus 30(6):E8PubMedCrossRef
23.
Rajaraman S, Rodriguez JJ, Graff C et al (2011) Automated registration of sequential breath-hold dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: a comparison of three techniques. Magn Reson Imaging 29(5):668–682PubMedCrossRef
24.
Wagner M, Doblas S, Daire JL, Paradis V, Haddad N, Leitao H, Garteiser P, Vilgrain V, Sinkus R, Van Beers BE (2012) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the regional characterization of liver tumors. Radiology 264(2):464–472PubMedCrossRef
25.
Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Lawrence TS et al (2005) Functional diffusion map: a noninvasive MRI biomarker for early stratification of clinical brain tumor response. PNAS 102(15):5524–5529PubMedCrossRef
26.
Yang X, Knopp MV (2011) Quantifying tumor vascular heterogeneity with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a review. J Biomed Biotechnol 732848:1–12
27.
Buckley DL (2002) Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 47(3):601–606PubMedCrossRef
28.
Michoux N, Huwart L, Abarca-Quinones J et al (2008) Transvascular and interstitial transport in rat hepatocellular carcinomas: dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI assessment with low- and high-molecular weight agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 28(4):906–914PubMedCrossRef
29.
Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL et al (2005) The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 92(9):1599–1610PubMedCrossRef
30.
Buckler AJ, Schwartz LH, Petrick N et al (2010) Data sets for the qualification of volumetric CT as a quantitative imaging biomarker in lung cancer. Opt Express 18(14):15267–15282PubMedCrossRef
31.
Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E et al (2008) Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 135(1):32–40PubMedCrossRef
32.
Friedrich-Rust M, Nierhoff J, Lupsor M et al (2012) Performance of Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging for the staging of liver fibrosis: a pooled meta-analysis. J Viral Hepat 19(2):e212–e219PubMedCrossRef
33.
Degos F, Perez P, Roche B et al (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of FibroScan and comparison to liver fibrosis biomarkers in chronic viral hepatitis: a multicenter prospective study (the FIBROSTIC study). J Hepatol 53(6):1013–1021PubMedCrossRef
34.
Chenevert TL, Galban CJ, Ivancevic MK et al (2011) Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):983–987PubMedCrossRef
35.
Lee YC, Fullerton GD, Baiu C, Lescrenier MG, Goins BA (2011) Preclinical multimodality phantom design for quality assurance of tumor size measurement. BMC Med Phys 11:1PubMedCrossRef
36.
Szegedi M, Rassiah-Szegedi P, Fullerton G, Wang B, Salter B (2010) A proto-type design of a real-tissue phantom for the validation of deformation algorithms and 4D dose calculations. Phys Med Biol 55(13):3685–3699PubMedCrossRef
37.
Wilhjelm JE, Jespersen SK, Falk E, Sillesen H (2006) The challenges in creating reference maps for verification of ultrasound images. Ultrasonics 4(Suppl 1):e141–e146CrossRef
38.
Wang TJ (2011) Assessing the role of circulating, genetic, and imaging biomarkers in cardiovascular risk prediction. Circulation 123(5):551–565PubMedCrossRef
39.
Polonsky TS, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW et al (2010) Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. JAMA 303(16):1610–1616PubMedCrossRef
40.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedCrossRef
41.
Cummings J, Ward TH, Dive C (2010) Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development. Drug Discov Today 15(19–20):816–825PubMedCrossRef
42.
Richter WS (2006) Imaging biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for drug development. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(Suppl 1):6–10PubMedCrossRef
43.
Woodcock J, Woosley R (2008) The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 59:1–12PubMedCrossRef
44.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674PubMedCrossRef
45.
Soloviev D, Lewis D, Honess D, Aboagye E (2012) [(18)F]FLT: an imaging biomarker of tumour proliferation for assessment of tumour response to treatment. Eur J Cancer 48(4):416–424PubMedCrossRef
46.
Nguyen QD, Challapalli A, Smith G, Fortt R, Aboagye EO (2012) Imaging apoptosis with positron emission tomography: ‘bench to bedside’ development of the caspase-3/7 specific radiotracer [(18)F]ICMT-11. Eur J Cancer 48(4):432–440
In a remark made to my last post: New envelopment in measuring mechanical properties of tissue, Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Director and Founderof our Open Access Online Scientific Journal: Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, asked whether OCT can be used for the purpose of performing biopsy. My answer to her question was “YES”. I thought that it will be worthwhile explaining why I am so “optimistic” about this:
A conventional biopsy is a process where a tissue sample is being cut out of the body and after being subjected to all kind of chemical processes a thin-film of tissue is trimmed and read under the microscope by a trained pathologist. Can imaging provide histological assessment of “thin-film” of tissue without cutting it out of the body? The answer would be positive if the imaging will result with high resolution reconstruction of a tissue sample identical in quality to a “live-sample” that is put under the microscope.
This article reports an original, first study to perform histological comparison and explore Optical coherence tomography (“OCT”) as a potential imaging technique for the clinical assessment of patients presenting with systemic sclerosis (“SSc”). In their study the investigators used a device emitting low-intensity infrared laser beam, capable of producing high-contrast images of skin up to 2 mm deep with resolutions of 4–10 μm.
[START ORIGINAL PAPER]
ABSTRACT
Background
Skin involvement is of major prognostic value in systemic sclerosis (SSc) and often the primary outcome in clinical trials. Nevertheless, an objective, validated biomarker of skin fibrosis is lacking. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging technology providing high-contrast images with 4 μm resolution, comparable with microscopy (‘virtual biopsy’). The present study evaluated OCT to detect and quantify skin fibrosis in SSc.
Methods
We performed 458 OCT scans of hands and forearms on 21 SSc patients and 22 healthy controls. We compared the findings with histology from three skin biopsies and by correlation with clinical assessment of the skin. We calculated the optical density (OD) of the OCT images employing Matlab software and performed statistical analysis of the results, including intraobserver/ interobserver reliability, employing SPSS software.
Results
Comparison of OCT images with skin histology indicated a progressive loss of visualisation of the dermal–epidermal junction associated with dermal fibrosis. Furthermore, SSc affected skin showed a consistent decrease of OD in the papillary dermis, progressively worse in patients with worse modified Rodnan skin score (p<0.0001). Additionally, clinically unaffected skin was also distinguishable from healthy skin for its specific pattern of OD decrease in the reticular dermis (p<0.001). The technique showed an excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.8).
Conclusions
OCT of the skin could offer a feasible and reliable quantitative outcome measure in SSc. Studies determining OCT sensitivity to change over time and its role in defining skin vasculopathy may pave the way to defining OCT as a valuable imaging biomarker in SSc.
Virtual skin biopsy by OCT
The OCT images acquisition allowed the reconstruction of a virtual skin biopsy measuring 4×0.4×2 mm. The main structure of the healthy skin was easily recognisable by OCT (figure 1).
Virtual biopsy of forearm skin by optical coherence tomography. Representative 3D reconstruction from the tomography of healthy and systemic sclerosis (SSc) (site modified Rodnan skin score=3) skin scans. The keratin of the skin appears as a white line on the surface (k). The epidermis (ED) is quite visible in the healthy skin by the contrast with the increased optical density of the papillary dermis (PD). The dermal– epidermal junction (DEJ) is quite visible in the healthy skin between the ED and PD. On the contrary, neither clear distinction of ED and PD or DEJ is appreciable in the SSc skin. The vessels (*) are numerous and very well recognisable in healthy skin, whereas they appear less numerous and less distinct in the OCT image of SSc skin. Total depth of 3D reconstruction=1.2 mm. Scale bars are calculated by ImageJ.
Some quantitative results – in images:
Validation of optical coherence tomography (OCT) images by histology. (A and B) H&E staining (A) and corresponding OCT scan (B) from a healthy control (HC). The green line is the mean A-scan of the entire OCT image (100 scans) overlaid by matching the scale bars of OCT and histology. The green arrow indicates the nadir of the valley in the mean A-scan, which corresponds to the dermal–epidermal junction clearly visible on both images. The green arrowhead indicates the second peak of the mean OCT A-Scan which corresponds by the overlay to the most superficial region of the papillary dermis. (C and D) H&E staining (C) and corresponding OCT scan (D) from a systemic sclerosis (SSc) patient (site modified Rodnan skin score =3). The red line is the mean A-scan of the OCT image, overlaid by matching the scale bars in the two panels. The red arrow indicates the nadir in the valley of the mean A-scan, which in this case does not correspond to the dermal–epidermal junction. The red arrowhead corresponds to the second peak in mean A-Scan. (E) Overlay of HC and SSc. Scale bar=240 μm.
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of affected and not affected skin in plaque morphea. (A) OCT of not affected skin. Vertical scale represents depth in micrometre from the surface. The dermal–epidermal junction (DEJ) level is indicated by the white dotted line. Mean A-scan curve is overlaid and displayed in green. (B) OCT of affected skin in morphea patient. Mean A-scan curve is overlaid and displayed in red. Note the poorly visible DEJ and the valley of the curve below the DEJ (arrowhead). (C) Overlay of mean A-scan curves from the analysis of affected and unaffected skin in a morphea patient. Note that in the curves overlay graph both the difference depth of the first valley is clearly appreciable (arrowheads). Similarly the second mean A-scan peak (arrow) is subtle in the affected skin, similar to scleroderma affected skin.
DISCUSSION
The current gold standard for semiquantitative assessment of skin fibrosis, the mRSS, suffers from several shortcomings ranging from the subjectivity of skin palpation assessments and the high level of skill required from the clinical investigator. Even more importantly, a meta-analysis of three independent studies determined an overall within patient interobserver SD of five units independently of the mean skin score,[6 21] which represents an SE ranging from 20% to 26%. A primary outcome measure with 25% of SE entails the recruitment of a large number of patients to attain statistical validity in minimally significant changes, a task often difficult to accomplish given the comparatively low incidence of SSc.
A robust imaging biomarker for the assessment of skin fibrosis in SSc has not previously been reported. Herein we report the first study aimed to validate OCT for the quantitative assessment of skin involvement in SSc.
To date, the limited data on surrogate outcome measures for skin involvement are largely composed of histopathological or molecular changes in affected skin.[22 23] Despite conceptually very valuable, these studies, involving skin biopsies, are invasive and limited because of a site bias, referring to only one precise body area. Moreover, they are difficult to repeat in longitudinal manner and showed no sensitivity to change over time.[24] In this study, we evaluated OCT skin scanning as a reliable and quantitative tool that could be used as a surrogate marker of skin fibrosis. The technique requires minimal operator training, less than 10s per site examined, and offers the great advantage of saving image files for further or centralised operator independent analysis. This latter is a particularly useful tool limiting the ‘hands on’ time in the clinic office and allowing a centralised, blinded assessment of results in clinical trials.
We observed an excellent correlation of OCT mean A-Scan curves and mRSS score at the site of analysis. More importantly, the corroboration of our OCT findings with pathological changes at the DEJ provides a robust construct validity for the technique. Of interest, we found that the changes of the OD of the dermis in SSc are similar to the ones observed in a case of plaque morphea, corroborating even further the potential value of OCT in measuring skin fibrosis.
Additional Comment
HFUS (High Frequensy Ultrasound) has been recently suggested to offer a quantitative assessment of skin thickness in SSc by several studies.8–10 In contrast with ultrasound, OCT does not require any use of gels, is able to give a higher resolution images and the analysis algorithm is automatic, not involving any operator interpretation. Nevertheless, since the penetration of OCT is limited to the first millimetre of skin, OCT and HFUS may be explored as complementary imaging biomarkers in SSc.
REFERENCES
1 Jimenez SA, Derk CT. Following the molecular pathways toward an understanding of the pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:37–50.
2 Varga J, Abraham D. Systemic sclerosis: a prototypic multisystem fibrotic disorder. J Clin Invest 2007;117:557–67.
3 Gabrielli A, Avvedimento EV, Krieg T. Scleroderma. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1989–2003.
4 Clements PJ, Hurwitz EL, Wong WK, et al. Skin thickness score as a predictor and correlate of outcome in systemic sclerosis: high-dose versus low-dose penicillamine trial. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:2445–54.
5 Steen VD, Medsger TA Jr. Improvement in skin thickening in systemic sclerosis associated with improved survival. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2828–35.
6 Pope JE, Baron M, Bellamy N, et al. Variability of skin scores and clinical measurements in scleroderma. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1271–6.
Clements PJ, Lachenbruch PA, Seibold JR, et al. Skin thickness score in systemic
sclerosis: an assessment of interobserver variability in 3 independent studies. J Rheumatol 1993;20:1892–6.
8 Akesson A, Hesselstrand R, Scheja A, et al. Longitudinal development of skin involvement and reliability of high frequency ultrasound in systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:791–6.
9 Moore TL, Lunt M, McManus B, et al. L. Seventeen-point dermal ultrasound scoring system—a reliable measure of skin thickness in patients with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42:1559–63.
10 Kaloudi O, Bandinelli F, Filippucci E, et al. High frequency ultrasound
measurement of digital dermal thickness in systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1140–3.
11 Aden N, Shiwen X, Aden D, et al. Proteomic analysis of scleroderma lesional skin reveals activated wound healing phenotype of epidermal cell layer. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47:1754–60.
12 Aden N, Nuttall A, Shiwen X, et al. Epithelial Cells Promote Fibroblast Activation via IL-1alpha in Systemic Sclerosis. J Invest Dermatol 2010;130:2191–200.
13 Gambichler T, Jaedicke V, Terras S. Optical coherence tomography in dermatology: technical and clinical aspects. Arch Dermatol Res 2011;303:457–73.
14 Marschall S, Sander B, Mogensen M, et al. Optical coherence tomography-current technology and applications in clinical and biomedical research. Anal Bioanal Chem 2011;400:2699–720.
15 Coleman AJ, Richardson TJ, Orchard G, et al. Histological correlates of optical coherence tomography in non-melanoma skin cancer. Skin Res Technol 2013;19: e10–9.
16 Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Subcommittee for scleroderma criteria of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:581–90.
17 Collins TJ. ImageJ for microscopy. Biotechniques 2007;43:25–30.
18 Clendenon JL, Phillips CL, Sandoval RM, et al. Voxx: a PC-based, near real-time
volume rendering system for biological microscopy. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2002;282:C213–18.
19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.
20 LeRoy EC, Black C, Fleischmajer R, et al. Scleroderma (systemic sclerosis): classification, subsets and pathogenesis. J Rheumatol 1988;15:202–5.
21 Merkel PA, Silliman NP, Clements PJ, et al. Patterns and predictors of change in outcome measures in clinical trials in scleroderma: an individual patient meta-analysis of 629 subjects with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:3420–9.
22 Farina G, Lafyatis D, Lemaire R, et al. A four-gene biomarker predicts skin disease in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:580–8.
23 Milano A, Pendergrass SA, Sargent JL, et al. Molecular subsets in the gene expression signatures of scleroderma skin. PLoS One 2008;3:e2696.
24 Pendergrass SA, Lemaire R, Francis IP, et al. Intrinsic gene expression subsets of
New development in measuring mechanical properties of tissue
Author – Writer: Dror Nir, PhD
Article 11.5.4 New development in measuring mechanical properties of tissue
Measuring the effects induced onto imaging by the mechanical properties of tissue is a common approach to differentiate tissue abnormalities. In previous posts I discussed the applicability of imaging applications that visualize variations in tissue stiffness; e.g. ultrasound-elastography and MRI-elastography as aid in the diagnosis workflow of cancer. Today, I would like to report on a recent publication made in SPIE Newsroom describing an optical-imaging system to measure tissue stiffness at high resolution. I think that such emerging technologies should be followed up as they bear promise to bridge deficiencies of the traditional modalities currently in use.
Reporting on:Optical elastography probes mechanical properties of tissue at high resolution
By: David Sampson, Kelsey Kennedy, Robert McLaughlin and Brendan Kennedy
Information published at:SPIE Newsroom – Biomedical Optics & Medical Imaging
Probing the micro-mechanical properties of tissue using optical imaging might offer new surgical tools that enable improved differentiation of tissue pathologies, such as cancer or atherosclerosis.
11 January 2013, SPIE Newsroom. DOI: 10.1117/2.1201212.004605
Elastography is an emerging branch of medical imaging that uses mechanical contrast to better characterize tissue pathology than can be achieved with structural imaging alone. It achieves this by imaging a tissue’s response to mechanical loading. Although commercial products based on ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been available for several years, these new modalities offer superior tissue differentiation deep in the human body. However, elastography is limited by its low resolution compared with the length scales relevant to many diseases. Increasing the resolution with optical techniques might offer new opportunities for elastography in medical imaging and surgical guidance.
An elastography system requires a means of loading the tissue to cause deformation and an imaging system with sufficient sensitivity and range to capture this deformation. Implicit in these requirements is access to the tissue of interest. Optical elastography has previously been largely based on schemes that suit small tissue samples rather than intact tissue in living humans. Additionally, such schemes have not had the sensitivity or range to produce high-fidelity images of mechanical properties. We have addressed both these issues in our recent work, developing the means to access tissues in vivo and improve the sensitivity and range of optical elastography using phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography as the underlying modality. The use of optical coherence tomography to perform elastography has come to be referred to as optical coherence elastography.1
To make optical coherence elastography on human subjects feasible, we designed an annular piezoelectric loading transducer (see Figure 1), through which we could simultaneously image, enabling the first in vivo dynamic optical coherence elastography on human subjects.2 We were subsequently able to extend this to three dimensions (see Figure 2), in collaboration with Stephen Boppart’s group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.3 This extension took advantage of the high speed of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, and the maturity of phase-sensitive detection techniques originally developed for Doppler flowmetry and microangiography.
Figure 1. Schematic (left) and photograph (right) of the annular load transducer and imaging optics for in vivo optical coherence elastography.
Figure 2. 2D images of in vivo human skin selected from 3D stacks. (a) Optical coherence tomography image and (b) the same image overlaid by the 2D dynamic elastogram recorded at 125Hz load frequency, highlighting the greater strain in the epidermis. Reprinted in modified form with permission.3
For general access to tissues in the body, optical coherence elastography faces two basic limitations. The free-space probe requires miniaturization for versatile access to tissue in confined or convoluted geometries. We addressed this in studies of the elastic properties of human airways using catheter-based anatomical optical coherence tomography.4
Figure 3. (a) Schematic diagram of needle optical coherence elastography. The phase difference Δφ=φ1– φ2 determines the displacement, d, when scaled by the wavelength, λ, and refractive index, n. (b) Needle and pig trachea. (c) Local displacement versus distance, with tissue boundaries indicated by red stars. (d) Representative histology. Reprinted in modified form with permission.6
More fundamentally, optical coherence tomography can only penetrate, at best, 1–2mm into most tissues, limiting it to superficial applications. To address this issue, we combined optical coherence elastography with needle probes, an active research area in our group (see Figure 3).5 We conveniently use the needle probe itself to deform the tissue during insertion.6 The deformation ahead of the needle tip depends on the mechanical properties of the tissue encountered, as well as on the nearby tissue environment, particularly on any interfaces ahead of it. We measure the local sub-micrometer displacement of the tissue between two positions of the moving needle probe. We plot this displacement versus distance ahead of the probe: see Figure 3(c). The slope of the displacement at location z is a measure of the local strain. A change in slope signifies a change in tissue stiffness; the steeper the slope, the softer the tissue (other things being equal). Figure 3 highlights this effect in a layered sample of pig trachea. The positions of the changes in slope correlate well with the tissue interfaces shown in the accompanying histology: see Figure 3(d).
The other key area of improvement we have focused on is lowering the optical coherence elastography noise floor by increasing the detection sensitivity, which is vital to make clinical imaging practical. We firstly showed that Gaussian-smoothed, weighted-least squares strain estimation improved the sensitivity of estimates by up to 12dB over conventional finite-difference methods.7 Next, we showed that performance could be further improved at low optical coherence tomo- graphy signal-to-noise ratios (and, therefore, at greater depths in tissue) by employing a 2D Fourier transform technique.8Combined with other system refinements, these improvements have enabled us to reach a displacement sensitivity of 300pm for typical optical coherence tomography signal-to-noise ratios in tissue, with room for improvement.
The Young’s modulus of soft tissue varies from kPa to tens of MPa, whereas the scattering coefficient of such tissues—which is largely responsible for determining the contrast of optical coherence tomography—is typically in the range 2–20mm−1. This apparent native advantage in mechanical over optical contrast (see the example in Figure 4), combined with the maturation of optical coherence elastography methods, bodes well for the future. In our group, we are pursuing tumor-margin identification using elastography; others have begun to consider corneal elastography,9, 10 and still others are examining shear wave schemes with the aim of probing Young’s modulus much deeper in tissues.11,12
Figure 4. Optical coherence tomography (a) and optical coherence elastography (b) images of the same phantom with two inclusions visible, showing enhanced mechanical over scattering contrast.
Optical elastography currently sits at a similar stage of development as ultrasound elastography did in 1999. Based on a similar trajectory, this field will rapidly expand over the next decade. Our recent results point to the first convincing applications of optical elastography being just around the corner.
We acknowledge funding for this work from Perpetual Trustees, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, the Cancer Council of Western Australia, the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia).
David Sampson
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering
and Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis The University of Western Australia
Perth, Australia
Kelsey Kennedy, Robert McLaughlin, Brendan Kennedy
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering The University of Western Australia
Perth, Australia
References:
1. J. Schmitt, OCT elastography: imaging microscopic deformation and strain of tissue, Opt. Express 3(6), p. 199-211, 1998.doi:10.1364/OE.3.000199
2. B. F. Kennedy, T. R. Hillman, R. A. McLaughlin, B. C. Quirk, D. D. Sampson, In vivo dynamic optical coherence elastography using a ring actuator, Opt. Express 17(24), p. 21762-21772, 2009.doi:10.1364/OE.17.021762
3. B. F. Kennedy, X. Liang, S. G. Adie, D. K. Gerstmann, B. C. Quirk, S. A. Boppart, D. D. Sampson, In vivo three-dimensional optical coherence elastography, Opt. Express 19(7), p. 6623-6634, 2011.doi:10.1364/OE.19.006623
4. J. P. Williamson, R. A. McLaughlin, W. J. Noffsingerl, A. L. James, V. A. Baker, A. Curatolo, J. J. Armstrong, Elastic properties of the central airways in obstructive lung diseases measured using anatomical optical coherence tomography, Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care 183(5), p. 612-619, 2011.doi:10.1164/rccm.201002-0178OC
5. R. A. McLaughlin, B. C. Quirk, A. Curatolo, R. W. Kirk, L. Scolaro, D. Lorenser, P. D. Robbins, B. A. Wood, C. M. Saunders, D. D. Sampson, Imaging of breast cancer with optical coherence tomography needle probes: Feasibility and initial results, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Quantum Electron. 18(3), p. 1184-1191, 2012. doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2011.2166757
6. K. M. Kennedy, B. F. Kennedy, R. A. McLaughlin, D. D. Sampson, Needle optical coherence elastography for tissue boundary detection, Opt. Lett. 37(12), p. 2310-2312, 2012. doi:10.1364/OL.37.002310
7. B. F. Kennedy, S. H. Koh, R. A. McLaughlin, K. M. Kennedy, P. R. T. Munro, D. D. Sampson, Strain estimation in phase-sensitive optical coherence elastography, Biomed. Opt. Express 3(8), p. 1865-1879, 2012.doi:10.1364/BOE.3.001865
8. B. F. Kennedy, M. Wojtkowski, M. Szkulmowski, K. M. Kennedy, K. Karnowski, D. D. Sampson, Improved measurement of vibration amplitude in dynamic optical coherence elastography, Biomed. Opt. Express 3(12), p. 3138-3152, 2012. doi:10.1364/BOE.3.003138
9. R. K. Manapuram, S. R. Aglyamov, F. M. Monediado, M. Mashiatulla, J. Li, S. Y. Emelianov, K. V. Larin, In vivo estimation of elastic wave parameters using phase-stabilized swept source optical coherence elastography, J. Biomed. Opt. 17(10), p. 100501, 2012.doi:10.1117/1.JBO.17.10.100501
10. W. Qi, R. Chen, L. Chou, G. Liu, J. Zhang, Q. Zhou, Z. Chen, Phase-resolved acoustic radiation force optical coherence elastography, J. Biomed. Opt. 17(11), p. 110505, 2012. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.17.11.110505
11. C. Li, G. Guan, S. Li, Z. Huang, R. K. Wang, Evaluating elastic properties of heterogeneous soft tissue by surface acoustic waves detected by phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography, J. Biomed. Opt. 17(5), p. 057002, 2012. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.17.5.057002
12. M. Razani, A. Mariampillai, C. Sun, T. W. H. Luk, V. X. D. Yang, M. C. Kolios, Feasibility of optical coherence elastography measurements of shear wave propagation in homogeneous tissue equivalent phantoms,Biomed. Opt. Express 3(5), p. 972-980, 2012. doi:10.1364/BOE.3.00097
Rewriting the Mathematics of Tumor Growth[1]; Teams Use Math Models to Sort Drivers from Passengers[2]: Two JNCI Reviews by Mike Martin Regarding Genomics, Cancer, and Mutation
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman
Word Cloud By Danielle Smolyar
Recently, there has been extensive interest in the cancer research and oncology community on detecting those mutations responsible for the initiation and propagation of a neoplastic cell (driver mutations) versus those mutations that are randomly (or by selective pressures) acquired due to the genetic instability of the transformed cell. The impact of either type of mutation has been a topic for debate, with a recent article showing that some passenger mutations may actually be responsible for tumor survival. In addition many articles, highlighted on this site (and referenced below) in recent years have described the importance of classifying driver and passenger mutations for the purposes of more effective personalized medicine strategies directed against tumors. Two review articles by Mike Martin in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JCNI) shed light on the current efforts and successes to discriminate between these passenger and driver mutations and determine impact of each type of mutation to tumor growth. However, as described in the associated article, the picture is not as clear cut as previously thought and highlights some revolutionary findings. In Rewriting the Mathematics of Tumor Growth, researchers discovered that driver mutations may confer such a small growth advantage that, multiple mutations, including the so called passenger mutations are necessary in order to sustain tumor growth. In fact, much experimental evidence has suggested at least six defined genetic events may be necessary for the in-vitro transformation of human cells. The following table shows some of the genetic events required for in-vitro transformation in cell culture systems.
3 for anchorage independence (cyclin D1, dnp53, EGFR),Cyclin D1+dnp53 for immortalization
HOSE
6
CDK4, cyclin D, hTERT plus combination of either P53DD, myrAkt, and H-ras or P53DD, H-ras, c-myc Bcl2
(f)Sasaki(Kiyono)
5
HOSE
3
hTERTSV40 earlyH-ras orK-ras
(g)Liu(Bast)
2hTERT+ SV40 early
HOSE
3
Large ThTERTH-ras orc-erB-2
(h)Kusakari(Fujii)
2hTERT+large T
Rat
Fibroblasts
2
Large TH-ras
(i)Hirakawa
Did not analyze
Fibroblasts
2
Large TH-ras
(d)Rangarajan(Weinberg)
Large T
Mouse
MOSEIn p53-/- background
3
c-mycK-rasAkt
(j)Orsulic
Pig
Fibroblasts
6
p53DDhTERTCDK4H-ras c-myccyclin D1
(k)Adam(Counter)
5 need all butp53DD
Note: priming means events required to immortalize but not fully transform. * Note that both ability to form colonies in soft agarose and subsequently tested for tumor formation in immunocompromised mice.
a. Hahn, W. C., Counter, C. M., Lundberg, A. S., Beijersbergen, R. L., Brooks, M. W., and Weinberg, R. A. (1999) Creation of human tumour cells with defined genetic elements, Nature400, 464-468.
b. Kendall, S. D., Linardic, C. M., Adam, S. J., and Counter, C. M. (2005) A network of genetic events sufficient to convert normal human cells to a tumorigenic state, Cancer Res65, 9824-9828.
c. Sun, B., Chen, M., Hawks, C. L., Pereira-Smith, O. M., and Hornsby, P. J. (2005) The minimal set of genetic alterations required for conversion of primary human fibroblasts to cancer cells in the subrenal capsule assay, Neoplasia7, 585-593.
d. Rangarajan, A., Hong, S. J., Gifford, A., and Weinberg, R. A. (2004) Species- and cell type-specific requirements for cellular transformation, Cancer Cell6, 171-183.
e. Goessel, G., Quante, M., Hahn, W. C., Harada, H., Heeg, S., Suliman, Y., Doebele, M., von Werder, A., Fulda, C., Nakagawa, H., Rustgi, A. K., Blum, H. E., and Opitz, O. G. (2005) Creating oral squamous cancer cells: a cellular model of oral-esophageal carcinogenesis, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A102, 15599-15604.
f. Sasaki, R., Narisawa-Saito, M., Yugawa, T., Fujita, M., Tashiro, H., Katabuchi, H., and Kiyono, T. (2009) Oncogenic transformation of human ovarian surface epithelial cells with defined cellular oncogenes,Carcinogenesis30, 423-431.
g. Liu, J., Yang, G., Thompson-Lanza, J. A., Glassman, A., Hayes, K., Patterson, A., Marquez, R. T., Auersperg, N., Yu, Y., Hahn, W. C., Mills, G. B., and Bast, R. C., Jr. (2004) A genetically defined model for human ovarian cancer, Cancer Res64, 1655-1663.
h. Kusakari, T., Kariya, M., Mandai, M., Tsuruta, Y., Hamid, A. A., Fukuhara, K., Nanbu, K., Takakura, K., and Fujii, S. (2003) C-erbB-2 or mutant Ha-ras induced malignant transformation of immortalized human ovarian surface epithelial cells in vitro, Br J Cancer89, 2293-2298.
i. Hirakawa, T., and Ruley, H. E. (1988) Rescue of cells from ras oncogene-induced growth arrest by a second, complementing, oncogene, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A85, 1519-1523.
j. Orsulic, S., Li, Y., Soslow, R. A., Vitale-Cross, L. A., Gutkind, J. S., and Varmus, H. E. (2002) Induction of ovarian cancer by defined multiple genetic changes in a mouse model system, Cancer Cell1, 53-62.
k. Adam, S. J., Rund, L. A., Kuzmuk, K. N., Zachary, J. F., Schook, L. B., and Counter, C. M. (2007) Genetic induction of tumorigenesis in swine, Oncogene26, 1038-1045.
However it may be argued that the aforementioned experimental examples were produced in cell lines with a more stable genome than that which is seen in most tumors and had used traditional assays of transformation, such as growth in soft agarose and tumorigenicity in immunocompromised mice, as endpoints of transformation, and not representative of the tumor growth seen in the clinical setting.
Therefore Bert Vogelstein, M.D., along with collaborators around the world developed a model they termed the “sequential driver mutation theory”, in which they describe that driver mutations multiply over time with each mutation “slightly increasing the tumor growth rate through a process that depends on three factors”:
Driver mutation rate
The 0.4% selective growth advantage
Cell division time
This model was based on a combination of experimental data and computer simulations of gliobastoma multiforme and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Most tumor models follow a Gompertz kinetics, which show how tumor growth is exponential but eventually levels off over time.
This new theory shows though that a tumor cell with only one driver mutation can only grow so much, until a second driver mutation is required. Using data for the COSMIC database (Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer) together with analysis software CHASM (Cancer-specific High-throughput Annotation of Somatic Mutations) the researchers analyzed 713 mutations sequenced from 14 glioma patients and 562 mutations in nine pancreatic adenocarcinomas, revealing at least 100 tumor suppressor genes and 100 oncogenes altered. Therefore, the authors suggested these may be possible driver mutations, or at least mutations required for the sustained growth of these tumors. Applying this new model to data obtained from Dr. Giardiello’s publication concerning familial adenopolypsis in New England Journal of medicine in 19993 and 2000, the sequential driver mutation model predicted age distribution of FAP patients, number and size of polyps, and polyp growth rate than previous models. This surprising number of required driver mutations for full transformation was also verified in a study led by University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center biologist Jerry Shay, Ph.D., who noted “this team’s surprise nearly 45% of all colorectal candidate oncogenes (65 mutations) drove malignant proliferation”[3].
However, some investigators do not believe the model is complex enough to account for other factors involved in oncogenesis, such as epigenetic factors like methylation and acetylation. In addition the review also discusses host and tissue factors which may complicate the models, such as location where a tumor develops. However, most of the investigators interviewed for this review agreed that focusing on this long-term progression of the disease may give us clues to other potential druggable targets.
Teams Use Math Models to Sort Drivers From Passengers
A related review from Mike Martin in JNCI [2] describes a statistical method, published in 2009 Cancer Informatics[4], which distinguishes chromosomal abnormalities that can drive oncogenesis from passenger abnormalities. Chromosomal abnormalities, such as deletions, additions, and translocations are common in cancer. For instance, the well-known Philadelphia chromosome, a translocation between chromosome 9 and 22 which results in the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase fusion protein is the molecular basis of chronic myelogenous leukemia.
In the report, Eytan Domany, Ph.D., from Weizmann Institute and several colleagues from University of Lausanne, University of Haifa and the Broad Institute were analyzing chromosomal aberrations in a subset of medulloblastoma, which had more gain and losses in chromosomes than had been attributed to the disease. Using a statistical method they termed a “volumetric sieve”, the investigators were able to identify driver versus passenger aberrations based on three filters:
Fraction of patients with the abnormality
Length of DNA involved in the aberrant chromosome
Abnormality’s copy number
Another method to sort the most “important” chromosomal aberrations from less relevant alterations is termed GISTIC[5], as the website describes is: a tool to identify genes targeted by somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) that drive cancer growth (at the Broad Institute website http://www.broadinstitute.org/software/cprg/?q=node/31). The method allows for comparison across multiple tumors so noise is eliminated and improves consistency of analysis. This method had been successfully used to determine driver aberrations is mesotheliomas, leukemias, and identify new oncogenes in adenocarcinomas of the lung and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.
Main references for the two Mike Martin articles are as follows:
3. Eskiocak U, Kim SB, Ly P, Roig AI, Biglione S, Komurov K, Cornelius C, Wright WE, White MA, Shay JW: Functional parsing of driver mutations in the colorectal cancer genome reveals numerous suppressors of anchorage-independent growth. Cancer research 2011, 71(13):4359-4365.
4. Shay T, Lambiv WL, Reiner-Benaim A, Hegi ME, Domany E: Combining chromosomal arm status and significantly aberrant genomic locations reveals new cancer subtypes. Cancer informatics 2009, 7:91-104.
Article 2.3 Genome-Wide Detection of Single-Nucleotide and Copy-Number Variation of a Single Human Cell
Most tumors exhibit a level of diversity, at the cellular, histologic, and even genetic level (2). This genetic heterogeneity within a tumor has been a focus of recent research efforts to analyze the characteristics, expression patterns, and genetic differences between individual tumor cells. This genetic diversity is usually manifested as single nucleotide variations (SNV) and copy number variations (CNV), both of which provide selection pressures in both cancer and evolution.
As cancer research and personalized medicine is focused on analyzing this tumor heterogeneity it has become pertinent view the tumor as a heterogeneous population of cells instead of as a homogenous mass. In, fact, studies have suggested that cancer cell lines growing on plastic in culture, even though thought of as clonogenic, can actually display a varied degree of expression differences between neighboring cells growing on the same dish. Indeed, cancer stem cells show an asynchronous cell division, for example a parent CD133-positive cell will divide into a CD133-positive and a CD133-negative cell(3). In addition, the discovery that circulating tumor cells (a rare population of circulating cells in the blood) can be prognostic of outcome in cancer such as inflammatory breast cancer(4), it is ever more important to develop methods to analyze single cell populations.
Harvard University researchers, Dr. Chenghang Zong, Sijia Lu, Alec Chapman and Sunney Xie developed a new amplification method utilizing multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycles (MALBAC)(1). A quasilinear preamplification process is used on pictograms of DNA genomic fragments (form 10 to 100 kb) isolated from a single cell. This is performed to reduce the bias associated with nonlinear DNA amplification. A series of random primers (which the authors termed MALBAC primers, constructed with a common sequence tags) are annealed at low temperature (0 °C). PCR rounds produce semiamplicons. Further rounds of amplification, after a step of looping the amplicons, result in full amplicons with complementary ends. When the two ends hybridize to form the looped DNA, this prevents use of this loop structure as a template, therefore leading to a close-to–linear amplification. The process allows for a higher fidelity of DNA replication and the ability to amplify a whole genome. The amplicons are then sequenced either by whole-genome sequencing methods using Sanger-sequencing to verify any single nucleotide polymorphisms. This procedure of MALBAC-amplification resulted in coverage of 85-93% of the genome of a single cell.
As proof of principle, the authors used MALBAC to amplify the DNA of single SW480 cancer cells (picked from a clonally expanded population of a heterogeneous population (the bulk DNA). Comparison of the MALBAC method versus the MDA method revealed copy number variations (CNV) between three individual cells, which had been picked from the clonally expanded pool. Their results were in agreement with karyotyping studies on the SW480 cell line. Meticulous quality controls were performed to limit contamination, high false positive rates of SNV detection due to amplification bias, and false positives due to amplification or sequencing errors.
Interestingly, the authors found 35 unique single nucleotide variations which h had occurred from 20 cell divisions from a single SW480 cancer cell. This resulted in an estimated 49 mutations which occurred in 20 generations, yielding a mutation rate of 2.5 nucleotides per generation. In addition, the authors were able to map some of these mutations on various chromosomes and perform next-gen sequencing (deep sequencing) to verify the nucleotide mutations and found an unusually high purine-pyrimidine exchange rate.
In a subsequent paper, investigators from the same group at Harvard used this technology to sequence 99 sperm cells from a single individual to study genetic diversity created during meiotic recombination, a mechanism involved in evolution and development(5).
2. Cooke, S. L., Temple, J., Macarthur, S., Zahra, M. A., Tan, L. T., Crawford, R. A., Ng, C. K., Jimenez-Linan, M., Sala, E., and Brenton, J. D. (2011) British journal of cancer104, 361-368
4. Giuliano, M., Giordano, A., Jackson, S., Hess, K. R., De Giorgi, U., Mego, M., Handy, B. C., Ueno, N. T., Alvarez, R. H., De Laurentiis, M., De Placido, S., Valero, V., Hortobagyi, G. N., Reuben, J. M., and Cristofanilli, M. (2011) Breast cancer research : BCR13, R67
5. Lu, S., Zong, C., Fan, W., Yang, M., Li, J., Chapman, A. R., Zhu, P., Hu, X., Xu, L., Yan, L., Bai, F., Qiao, J., Tang, F., Li, R., and Xie, X. S. (2012) Science338, 1627-1630
Other related posts on this website regarding Cancer and Genomics include:
The paper gives a fair description of the use of imaging in interventional oncology based on literature review of more than 200 peer-reviewed publications. In this post I summaries the chapter on colorectal cancer imaging. It reviews current and developing radiologic practices in CRC with respect to screening, preoperative evaluation, surveillance, and post-treatment re-staging.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an example to successful imaging-based screening evident by noticeable reduction in mortality rates. The 5-year survival rate of CRC patients diagnosed at an early stage is 90%.1121 According to this review; “(CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second most frequent cause of cancer death in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that 143,460 new cases of CRC will be diagnosed and 51,690 deaths from CRC will occur in the United States in 2012.120 Because of screening and removal of premalignant polyps, incidence rates have declined over the last 3 decades.”
The authors found out that the increased use of CT in CRC screening has the potential of reducing its costs and associated tisks 122 In addition, use of DW-MRI enabled better outcomes of CRC liver metastasis treatment as it enables tailored localized treatment of such lesions.123124 Finally, the authors found that: “MRI for staging of rectal cancer has become standard practice and, in some instances, is performed in lieu of surgeon-performed endorectal US (ERUS), providing the radiologist with an even greater role in the management of patients with CRC.125 “
Screening
“CRC is a largely preventable disease, as the progression of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence of mutations is slow and leaves ample time to intervene. Nonetheless, approximately 41% of the population (in the USA) eligible for screening remains unscreened. 126 Most screening is performed using non-imaging tests”
Any of these screening strategies will reduce mortality from CRC.126, 127
Among imaging tests used for screening, barium enema has seen a continual decline in usage, at least in part due to the landmark study showing that this test detected only 39% of polyps identified at colonoscopy, including only 48% of those > 1 cm in size.131 The recent (and largest, with > 2500 patients) multicenter CT colonography (CTC, also known as virtual colonoscopy) screening study, performed by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, found that CTC had sensitivity of 90% and similar specificity for polyps > 9 mm, and the number of centers using CTC has increased.122 Widespread deployment of CTC remains hindered, in part, by the 2009 decision of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) to deny reimbursement based on 1) potential radiation risk, 2) impact of detection of extracolonic findings, and 3) efficacy in the 65 years and older age group of concern to CMS. Data from studies reported after this decision put CTC in a good position to be reconsidered for reimbursement. The median estimated effective dose is currently 5 to 6 mSv, a dose far less than that received from a standard CT exam and even comparable to or lower than that received from a barium enema examination. In fact, the radiation dose from CTC is equivalent to that received from cosmic radiation in a 1-year period.132 Extra-colonic findings occur in 7% to 11% of cases and lead to extra examinations in about 6% with a relevant new diagnosis made in 2.5%, according to the experience of the largest screening center in the United States.133 Furthermore, when detection of extracolonic cancers and aortoiliac aneurysms is included along with CRC screening, CT colonography (CTC) has been shown to be more clinically effective and more cost-effective than optical colonoscopy.134 In an observational study, CTC accuracy was maintained in patients aged 65 to 79 years, who were compared to the overall general population sample. In the older patients, CTC remained a safe and effective modality and program outcome measures, such as colonoscopy referral and extracolonic work-up rates, remained similar to those in other screened groups.135“
Detection and Characterization
“Diagnosis and clinical staging of primary colonic adenocarcinoma is most often accomplished by combining colonoscopy with biopsy and performing cross-sectional imaging to detect metastatic disease.
Although CT and MRI are widely used for preoperative whole-body staging, they are not recommended first-line methods for detection of primary lesions. In contradistinction, CTC has matured into an excellent diagnostic method for detection of CRC. Data drawn largely from screening studies tell us that its sensitivity for polyps > 10 mm is 90% or greater, and that it will detect nearly every cancer. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of more than 11,000 patients indicated that CTC had sensitivity of 96.1% (398 of 414) for CRC, and when cathartic cleansing and fecal tagging were used, no cancers were missed (Fig. 16).137 Detection of flat cancers remains a challenge with CTC as compared with endoscopic methods in which mucosal surface details are better appreciated. CTC not only detects CRC, but with its cross-sectional depiction also allows characterization of tumors using the TNM staging system138 with reasonable T- and N-stage accuracies of 83% and 80%, respectively.139 CTC is an operator-dependent technique that has shown great variability between radiologists with different degrees of training. Computer-aided detection (CAD) was developed for this reason and because 10,000 to 15,000 images must be scrutinized for each large adenoma detected. In a screening cohort of 3077 consecutive asymptomatic adults, stand-alone CAD had sensitivities of 97% and 100% for advanced neoplasia and cancer, respectively.140
Coronal reformatted CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis shows a left colon primary adenocarcinoma causing colonic obstruction.
Three-dimensional rendering from CT colonography shows a right colon adenocarcinoma which was stage T1N0.
With magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), detection of masses is limited because techniques employing air cause susceptibility artifacts, and those employing dark-lumen techniques with water-filling and intravenous gadolinium are under scrutiny because of concerns about the potential risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. In addition, in the largest screening study, the sensitivity of MRC was only 70% in patients with colorectal lesions more than 10 mm in size.141
Imaging plays a critical role in detecting liver metastases in order to properly stage and treat the patient with colorectal cancer. NCCN guidelines recommend contrast-enhanced CT or MRI.142 “
MRI is the most promising imaging modality for management of rectal cancer.
Staging of this cancer is primarily accomplished with US, typically performed by surgeons. MRI using phased-array coils provides complete visualization of the pelvic anatomy and, especially, the circumferential resection margin, an important landmark for the standard total mesorectal excision.
In an MRI of rectal carcinoma, the T2-weighted axial image shows rectal mass penetrating the wall and extending to the left posterolateral mesorectal fascia (also known as the circumferential resection margin).
The MERCURY study125established the near equivalence of MRI to histopathology for identification of this margin, an important advantage of MRI over ERUS, with which the margin is not routinely visualized.147 T- and N- stage accuracies of MRI (87% and 74%, respectively) were similar to those of ERUS (82% and 74%, respectively).148 Accurate lymph node identification remains a problem for MRI. Toward this end, a new albumin-bound gadolinium agent has shown some promise, and further results are awaited.149”
Role of Imaging in Assessing Treatment Response
“Imaging plays a critical role in 1) determining response to systemic and loco-regional treatment of liver metastases, 2) assessing response to local treatment and restaging rectal cancer primary lesions, and 3) detecting and assessing the treatment response of extra-hepatic metastatic disease. Systemic treatment (and in some centers, hepatic artery infusion) of non-resectable liver metastases with chemotherapy aims at reduction of the metastatic burden, which, occasionally may allow attempts at curative liver resection.
Due to the limitations of CT with regard to soft tissue contrast and fatty liver. MRI has greater sensitivity for remaining (or new) lesions < 1.0 cm due to its superior soft tissue contrast. In a recent meta-analysis of 25 eligible studies, MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT on a per-patient basis (P = .05) and on a per-lesion basis as well (P = .0001). With its 81.1% sensitivity and 97.2% specificity, MRI is thus the preferred modality.151 Nonetheless, under the current NCCN guidelines, CT remains the preferred modality.142
Loco-regional (“liver-directed”) therapies include radiofrequency, microwave ablation, transarterial chemo- or particle embolization and irreversible electroporation. With these treatments, responding lesions can actually increase in size, and simple size criteria are no longer sufficient to determine response. The European Association for the Study of the Liver has issued new criteria to assess viability of remaining tumor based on enhancing residual volume by multiphase CT or MRI.152 However, the field is rapidly changing and there is no consensus on the optimal imaging strategy following loco-regional therapy.
Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials comparing low-intensity and high-intensity surveillance programs have shown advantages for more intense follow-up in Stages I-III disease;170-173 however, controversies remain regarding the optimal surveillance strategy. “
Lymphoma Imaging
To be followed…
Other research papers related to the management of Colorectal cancer were published on this Scientific Web site: