Linden, Hannah M.

Abstract As anticancer therapies designed to target specific molecular pathways have been developed, it has become critical to develop methods to assess the response induced by such agents. Although traditional, anatomic CT, and MRI examinations are useful in many settings, increasing evidence suggests that these methods cannot answer the fundamental biologic and physiologic questions essential for assessment and, eventually, prediction of treatment response in the clinical trial setting, especially in the critical period soon after treatment is initiated. To optimally apply advances in quantitative imaging methods to trials of targeted cancer therapy, new infrastructure improvements are needed that incorporate these emerging techniques into the settings where they are most likely to have impact. In this review, we first elucidate the needs for therapeutic response assessment in the era of molecularly targeted therapy and describe how quantitative imaging can most effectively provide scientifically and clinically relevant data. We then describe the tools and methods required to apply quantitative imaging and provide concrete examples of work making these advances practically available for routine application in clinical trials. We conclude by proposing strategies to surmount barriers to wider incorporation of these quantitative imaging methods into clinical trials and, eventually, clinical practice. Our goal is to encourage and guide the oncology community to deploy standardized quantitative imaging techniques in clinical trials to further personalize care for cancer patients and to provide a more efficient path for the development of improved targeted therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 284–90. ©2016 AACR.

Purpose We conducted a phase III randomized study of two adjuvant treatment schedules of doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) in early-stage breast cancer to determine if administration of sequential single agents (A → C) results in superior disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) versus the same total dose given in combination (AC). Patients and Methods High-risk node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer patients received AC given: (arm I) concurrently (AC) doxorubicin 54 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 1.2 g/m2 intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks for six cycles; or (arm II) in sequence (A → C) doxorubicin 40.5 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 2 every 3 weeks for four cyles followed by cyclophosphamide 2.4 gm/m2 IV every 2 weeks for three cycles. Total dose and duration were identical, but the intensity of each drug was increased on A → C. Both arms included granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support and prophylactic antibiotics. All but premenopausal women with receptor negative tumors received tamoxifen after chemotherapy. Results Between 1994 and 1997, 3,176 patients were randomly assigned. Arms were well balanced; 48% of eligible patients were node-negative and 48% were estrogen receptor–positive. No significant differences in OS or DFS were observed; 5-year estimates of OS (95% CI) were 88% (87% to 90%) on AC and 89% (87% to 91%) on A → C. Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was greater on A → C, but nonhematological grade 4 was similar. Conclusion The overall result does not support superiority of dose-intense sequenced single agents. The greater toxicity of higher doses of single agents does not support their sequential use.