TY - JOUR
T1 - Immune modulation therapy and imaging
T2 - Workshop report
AU - Shields, Anthony F.
AU - Jacobs, Paula M.
AU - Sznol, Mario
AU - Graham, Michael M.
AU - Germain, Ron N.
AU - Lum, Lawrence G.
AU - Jaffee, Elizabeth M.
AU - De Vries, Elisabeth G.E.
AU - Nimmagadda, Sridhar
AU - Van Den Abbeele, Annick D.
AU - Leung, David K.
AU - Wu, Anna M.
AU - Sharon, Elad
AU - Shankar, Lalitha K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - A workshop at the National Cancer Institute on May 2, 2016, considered the current state of imaging in assessment of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy has shown some remarkable and prolonged responses in the treatment of tumors. However, responses are variable and frequently delayed, complicating the evaluation of new immunotherapy agents and customizing treatment for individual patients. Early anatomic imaging may show that a tumor has increased in size, but this could represent pseudoprogression. On the basis of imaging, clinicians must decide if they should stop, pause, or continue treatment. Other imaging technologies and approaches are being developed to improve the measurement of response in patients receiving immunotherapy. Imaging methods that are being evaluated include radiomic methods using CT, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET, as well as new radiolabeled small molecules, antibodies, and antibody fragments to image the tumor microenvironment, immune status, and changes over the course of therapy. Current studies of immunotherapy can take advantage of these available imaging options to explore and validate their use. Collection of CT, PET, and MR images along with outcomes from trials is critical to develop improved methods of assessment.
AB - A workshop at the National Cancer Institute on May 2, 2016, considered the current state of imaging in assessment of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy has shown some remarkable and prolonged responses in the treatment of tumors. However, responses are variable and frequently delayed, complicating the evaluation of new immunotherapy agents and customizing treatment for individual patients. Early anatomic imaging may show that a tumor has increased in size, but this could represent pseudoprogression. On the basis of imaging, clinicians must decide if they should stop, pause, or continue treatment. Other imaging technologies and approaches are being developed to improve the measurement of response in patients receiving immunotherapy. Imaging methods that are being evaluated include radiomic methods using CT, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET, as well as new radiolabeled small molecules, antibodies, and antibody fragments to image the tumor microenvironment, immune status, and changes over the course of therapy. Current studies of immunotherapy can take advantage of these available imaging options to explore and validate their use. Collection of CT, PET, and MR images along with outcomes from trials is critical to develop improved methods of assessment.
KW - Biomarkers
KW - Imaging cancer
KW - Immunotherapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044203832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044203832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2967/jnumed.117.195610
DO - 10.2967/jnumed.117.195610
M3 - Article
C2 - 28818991
AN - SCOPUS:85044203832
SN - 0161-5505
VL - 59
SP - 410
EP - 417
JO - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
IS - 3
ER -