Imaging biobanks in oncology: European perspective

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •

References

• 1 European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision of 22 November 2013 on setting up the Biobanks and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC) as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium. J. Eur. Union 56, 63 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 2 BBMRI-ERIC^®. http://bbmri-eric.eu.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Petersen SE, Matthews PM, Bamberg F et al. Imaging in population science: cardiovascular magnetic resonance in 100,000 participants of UK Biobank – rationale, challenges and approaches. J. Cardiovasc. Reson. 15, 46 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Starkbaum J, Gottweis H, Gottweis U et al. Public perceptions of cohort studies and biobanks in Germany. Biopreserv. Biobank. 12, 121–130 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5 European Society of Radiology (ESR). Position paper on imaging biobanks. Insights Imaging 6(4), 403–410 (2015). • Defines imaging biobanks, describes the essential components and how to develop an imaging biobank.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69(3), 89–95 (2001). • Explains the general concept of ‘biomarker’.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 European Society of Radiology (ESR). ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 4(2), 147–152 (2013). • Explains the concept and development of imaging biomarkers.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 European Society of Radiology (ESR). White paper on imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 1(2), 42–45 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9 Marti Bonmati L, Alberich-Bayarri A, Garcia-Marti G et al. Imaging biomarkers, quantitative imaging, and bioengineering. Radiology 54(3), 269–278 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 10 Waterton JC, Pylkkanen L. Qualification of imaging biomarkers for oncology drug development. Eur. J. Cancer 48(4), 409–415 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11 William Prescott J. Quantitative Imaging biomarkers: the application of advanced image processing and analysis to clinical and preclinical decision making. J. Digit. Imaging 26(1), 97–108 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Neri E, Guidi E, Pancrazi F et al. MRI tumor volume reduction rate vs tumor regression grade in the pre-operative re-staging of locally advanced rectal cancer after chemo-radiotherapy. Eur. J. Radiol. 84(12), 2438–2443 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13 Lerant G, Sarkozy P, Takacsi-Nagy Z et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters as biomarkers in assessing head and neck lesions after chemoradiotherapy using a wide-bore 3 Tesla scanner. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 21(4), 1091–1099 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14 Chakiba C, Cornelis F, Descat E et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI-derived parameters are potential biomarkers of therapeutic response in bladder carcinoma. Eur. J. Radiol. 84(6), 1023–1028 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ellingson BM, Kim E, Woodworth DC et al. Diffusion MRI quality control and functional diffusion map results in ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625: a multicenter, randomized, Phase II trial of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma. Int. J. Oncol. 46(5), 1883–1892 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16 Joye I, Deroose CM, Vandecaveye V, Haustermans K. The role of diffusion-weighted MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the prediction of pathologic complete response after radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review. Radiother. Oncol. 113(2), 158–165 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17 De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M et al. Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Invest. Radiol. 50(4), 239–245 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18 Chen BB, Tien YW, Chang MC et al. PET/MRI in pancreatic and periampullary cancer: correlating diffusion-weighted imaging, MR spectroscopy and glucose metabolic activity with clinical stage and prognosis. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 43(10), 1753–1764 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19 Sparacia G, Gadde JA, Iaia A, Sparacia B, Midiri M. Usefulness of quantitative peritumoural perfusion and proton spectroscopic magnetic resonance imaging evaluation in differentiating brain gliomas from solitary brain metastases. Neuroradiol. J. 29(3), 160–167 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20 Evans A, Sim YT, Thomson K, Jordan L, Purdie C, Vinnicombe SJ. Shear wave elastography of breast cancer: sensitivity according to histological type in a large cohort. Breast 26, 115–118 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21 Seo YS, Kim MN, Kim SU et al. Risk assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma using transient elastography vs. liver biopsy in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving antiviral therapy. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(12), 2985 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 22 van Dijk LK, Boerman OC, Kaanders JH, Bussink J. pet imaging in head and neck cancer patients to monitor treatment response: a future role for EGFR-targeted imaging. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(16), 3602–3609 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 23 European Society of Radiology (ESR). Magnetic resonance fingerprinting – a promising new approach to obtain standardized imaging biomarkers from MRI. Insights Imaging 6(2), 163–165 (2015). • Regards the proposal of a new method for the standardization of imaging biomarkers in MRI.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 The German National Cohort: study design and organization. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 29, 371–382 (2014). • Large population study (with long-term perspective, 20–30 years) to investigate the causes for the development of major chronic diseases, in other words, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative/-psychiatric diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, respiratory and infectious diseases, and their preclinical stages or functional health impairments.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Wyttenbach R, Médioni N, Santini P, Vock P, Szucs-Farkas Z. Extracardiac findings detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. Radiol. 22(6), 1295–1302 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26 Morris Z, Whiteley WN, Longstreth WT Jr et al. Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 339, b3016 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27 Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. http://bioethics.gov/node/3183.
  Google Scholar
• 28 Sali L, Grazzini G, Carozzi F et al. Screening for colorectal cancer with FOBT, virtual colonoscopy and optical colonoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in the Florence district (SAVE study). Trials 15(14), 74 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 29 Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277(3), 663–684 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30 Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective Reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277(3), 697–706 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31 National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 23, 368(21), 1980–1991 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 32 van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(23), 2221–2229 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33 Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M et al. SAVE study investigators. Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 108(2), 1–8 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 34 Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 13(1), 55–64 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35 Regge D, Iussich G, Segnan N et al. Comparing CT colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomized controlled trial within a population-based screening programme. Gut doi:gutjnl-2015-311278 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36 Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S et al. Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur. Radiol. 20(2), 348–358 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37 Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 68(6), 1045–1053 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38 Hötker AM, Mazaheri Y, Aras Ö et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness by use of the combination of quantitative DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 206(4), 756–763 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39 Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V et al. Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys. Med. Biol. 60(7), 2685–2701 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40 Gabriele D, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Krengli M et al. EUREKA-2 consortium. Beyond D'Amico risk classes for predicting recurrence after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the Candiolo classifier. Radiat. Oncol. 24(11), 23 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 41 Diaz LA Jr, Bardelli A. Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(6), 579–586 (2014). • Highlights the importance of liquid biopsy for tracking tumor dynamics in real time.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42 Lu YF, Goldstein DB, Angrist M, Cavalleri G. Personalized medicine and human genetic diversity. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 4(9), a008581 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43 Pao W, Miller VA, Politi KA et al. Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med. 2, e73 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44 Antonescu CR, Besmer P, Guo T et al. Acquired resistance to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor occurs through secondary gene mutation. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 4182–4190 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45 Cavalli F. An appeal to world leaders: stop cancer now. Lancet 381(9865), 425–426 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46 Are we fighting cancer the right way? www.bbc.com/news/health-35423400.
  Google Scholar
• 47 Sartore-Bianchi A, Trusolino L, Martino C et al. Dual-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and lapatinib in treatment-refractory, KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type, HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer (HERACLES): a proof-of-concept, multicentre, open-label, Phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. S1470–S2045(16), 150–159 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 48 HTA - 14/31/04: Impact of multiparametric MRI on staging and management of patients with suspected or confirmed ovarian cancer Short title: MR in Ovarian Cancer (MROC study). www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/143104.
  Google Scholar
• 49 Cancer Imaging Archive. www.cancerimagingarchive.net.
  Google Scholar
• 50 Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J. Digit. Imaging 26(6), 1045–1057 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51 Laskin J, Jones S, Aparicio S et al. Lessons learned from the application of whole-genome analysis to the treatment of patients with advanced cancers. Cold Spring Harb. Mol. Case Stud. 1(1), a000570 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 Wang DH, Park JY. Precision medicine in gastrointestinal pathology. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 140(5), 449–460 (2016). • Presents the current state of precision medicine using gastrointestinal oncology as a model.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53 Kirschner M, Bauch A, Agusti A. Implementing systems medicine within healthcare. Genome Med. 7, 102 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 54 Osborne JD, Wyatt M, Westfall AO, Willig J, Bethard S, Gordon G. Efficient identification of nationally mandated reportable cancer cases using natural language processing and machine learning. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw006 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 55 Chen Y, Elenee Argentinis JD, Weber G. IBM Watson: how cognitive computing can be applied to big data challenges in life sciences research. Clin. Ther. 38(4), 688–701 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar