Correlating and Combining Genomic and Proteomic Assessment with In Vivo Molecular Functional Imaging: Will This Be the Future Roadmap for Personalized Cancer Management?
Publication: Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
Volume 31, Issue Number 3
Abstract
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in personalized approach in cancer management. Two developments could be regarded important for realization of this concept: (1) new biomarkers and (2) in vivo molecular tracers for both positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography. Both approaches are successful in exploring tumor biology individually and can serve as tools to better stratify tumors for potential personalized medicine. The fundamental concept comes from the observation that one treatment does not work for all patients, even those with similar histopathology, essentially because of varying tumor genotype and phenotypic behavior pattern in each individual. Clinically validated biomarkers and tracers allow physicians to determine which patient may benefit from a particular therapy. Despite progress in the past decade, the concept is still in the early stages of clinical translation. In this review, the authors hypothesize the feasibility of integration of these two powerful techniques, which could lead to a faster translation and provide a more reliable basis toward the personalized approach in oncology. The authors believe that clinically validated biomarkers and tracers would allow physicians to determine which patients may benefit from personalized therapy. The logistics and implications of this combined approach for the day-to-day clinical oncology practice are discussed with special emphasis on neuroendocrine tumors, which demonstrates widely variable tumor biology. A logical way is also illustrated to explain how biomarkers and in vivo tracers could be complemented in a clinical workflow.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ferreira BI, Hill R, Link W. Caught in the crosshairs: Targeted drugs and personalized medicine. Cancer J 2015;21:441.
2.
Patel SP, Schwaederle M, Daniels GA, et al. Molecular inimitability amongst tumors: Implications for precision cancer medicine in the age of personalized oncology. Oncotarget 2015;6:32602.
3.
Alfaro JA, Sinha A, Kislinger T, et al. Onco-proteogenomics: Cancer proteomics joins forces with genomics. Nat Methods 2014;11:1107.
4.
Locard-Paulet M, Pible O, Gonzalez de Peredo A, et al. Clinical implications of recent advances in proteogenomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 2016;13:1.
5.
Blumenthal GM, Mansfield E, Pazdur R. Next-generation sequencing in oncology in the era of precision medicine. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:13.
6.
Di Nicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5705.
7.
Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012;490:61.
8.
Basu S. From pure research imaging tool to PET-guided personalized medicine in oncology: A true revolution in modern medicine. Indian J Cancer 2010;47:98.
9.
Majewski IJ, Bernards R. Taming the dragon: Genomic biomarkers to individualize the treatment of cancer. Nat Med 2011;17:304.
10.
Miles G, Rae J, Ramalingam SS, et al. Genetic testing and tissue banking for personalized oncology: Analytical and institutional factors. Semin Oncol 2015;42:713.
11.
Syme R, Carleton B, Leyens L, et al. Integrating personalized medicine in the Canadian environment: Efforts facilitating oncology clinical research. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:372.
12.
Hofstatter E, Mehra K, Yushak M, et al. Tumor profiling and the incidentalome: Patient decisions and risks. Future Oncol 2015;11:3299.
13.
Sager M, Yeat NC, Pajaro-Van derStadt S, et al. Transcriptomics in cancer diagnostics: Developments in technology, clinical research and commercialization. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2015;15:1589.
14.
Basu S. Personalized versus evidence-based medicine with PET-based imaging. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:665.
15.
Ehlerding EB, Cai W. Harnessing the power of molecular imaging for precision medicine. J Nucl Med 2016;57:171.
16.
Basu S. The scope and potentials of functional radionuclide imaging towards advancing personalized medicine in oncology: Emphasis on PET-CT. Discov Med 2012;13:65.
17.
Tang LH, Shia J, Vakiani E, et al. High grade transformation of differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the enteropancreatic system—A unique entity distinct from de novo high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (HGNECa) in pathogenesis and clinical behavior. Mod Pathol 2008;21:137A.
18.
Basu S, Ranade R, Thapa P. Correlation and discordance of tumour proliferation index and molecular imaging characteristics and their implications for treatment decisions and outcome pertaining to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumour: Developing a personalized model. Nucl Med Commun 2015;36:766.
19.
Basu S, Sirohi B, Shrikhande SV. Dual tracer imaging approach in assessing tumor biology and heterogeneity in neuroendocrine tumors: Its correlation with tumor proliferation index and possible multifaceted implications for personalized clinical management decisions, with focus on PRRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:1492.
20.
Benson AB, Myerson RJ, Sasson AR. Pancreatic, neuroendocrine GI, and adrenal cancers. In: Pazdur R, Wagman LD, Camphausen KA, eds. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 13th ed., Ubm Medica, 2010.
21.
Ramage JK, Davies AH, Ardill J, et al. Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumours. Gut 2005;54(suppl4):iv1.
22.
Virgolini I, Innsbruck Team. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT): Clinical significance of re-treatment? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:1949.
23.
vanderZwan WA, Bodei L, Mueller-Brand J, et al. GEPNETs update: Radionuclide therapy in neuroendocrine tumors. Eur J Endocrinol 2015;172:R1.
24.
Aronson JK. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005;59:491.
25.
Klimstra DS, Beltran H, Lilenbaum R, et al. The spectrum of neuroendocrine tumors: Histologic classification, unique features and areas of overlap. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2015;35:92.
26.
Schott M, Klöppel G, Raffel A, et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108:305.
27.
Theochari MS, Syrigos KN, Saif MW. Biomarkers in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. JOP 2014;15:138.
28.
Jiao Y, Shi C, Edil BH, et al. DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Science 2011;331:1199.
29.
Yachida S, Vakiani E, White CM, et al. Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:173.
30.
Marinoni I, Kurrer AS, et al. Loss of DAXX and ATRX are associated with chromosome instability and reduced survival of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Gastroenterology 2014;146:453.
31.
Kim H, Lee JE, Cho EJ, et al. Menin, a tumor suppressor, represses JunD-mediated transcriptional activity by association with an mSin3A-histone deacetylase complex. Cancer Res 2003;63:6135.
32.
Lewis PW, Elsaesser SJ, Noh KM, et al. Daxx is an H3.3-specific histone chaperone and cooperates with ATRX in replication-independent chromatin assembly at telomeres. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:14075.
33.
Olivier M, Hollstein M, Hainaut P. TP53 mutations in human cancers: Origins, consequences, and clinical use. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2010;2:a001008.
34.
Jiang SX, Kameya T, Sato Y, et al. Bcl-2 protein expression in lung cancer and close correlation with neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Pathol 1996;148:837.
35.
Kang MH, Reynolds CP. Bcl-2 inhibitors: Targeting mitochondrial apoptotic pathways in cancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:1126.
36.
Kaufmann SH, Gores GJ. Apoptosis in cancer: Cause and cure. Bioessays 2000;22:1007.
37.
Missiaglia E, Dalai I, Barbi S, et al. Pancreatic endocrine tumors: Expression profiling evidences a role for AKT-mTOR pathway. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:245.
38.
Johannessen CM, Reczek EE, James MF, et al. The NF1 tumor suppressor critically regulates TSC2 and mTOR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:8573.
39.
Qian ZR, Ter-Minassian M, Chan JA, et al. Prognostic significance of MTOR pathway component expression in neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3418.
40.
Catena L, Bajetta E, Milione M, et al. Mammalian target of rapamycin expression in poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma: Clinical and therapeutic future challenges. Target Oncol 2011;6:65.
41.
Couvelard A, Hu J, Steers G, et al. Identification of potential therapeutic targets by gene-expression profiling in pancreatic endocrine tumors. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1597.
42.
Faivre S, Sablin M, Dreyer C, et al. Novel anticancer agents in clinical trials for well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2010;39:811.
43.
Son EM, Kim JY, An S, et al. Clinical and prognostic significances of cytokeratin 19 and KIT expression in surgically resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Pathol Transl Med 2015;49:30.
44.
Zhang L, Smyrk TC, Oliveira AM, et al. KIT is an independent prognostic marker for pancreatic endocrine tumors: A finding derived from analysis of islet cell differentiation markers. Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33:1562.
45.
Ekeblad S, Sundin A, Janson ET, et al. Temozolomide as monotherapy is effective in treatment of advanced malignant neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:2986.
46.
Lie L, Gerson SL. Targeted modulation of MGMT: Clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:328.
47.
Modlin IM, Champaneria MC, Chan AK, et al. A three-decade analysis of 3,911 small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors: The rapid pace of no progress. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1464.
48.
Geis C, Fendrich V, Rexin P, et al. Ileal neuroendocrine tumors show elevated activation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex. J Surg Res 2015;194:388.
49.
Banck MS, Kanwar R, Kulkarni AA, et al. The genomic landscape of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Invest 2013;123:2502.
50.
Crona J, Gustavsson T, Norlén O, et al. Somatic mutations and genetic heterogeneity at the CDKN1B locus in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22(suppl3):1428.
51.
Travis WD, Brambilla E, Muller-Hermelink HK, et al. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the lung, pleura, thymus and heart. In: Travis, WD, Brambilla E, Müller-Hermelink, HK, Harris CH, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, Vol 10. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2004:9.
52.
Rekhtman N. Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung – An update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:1628.
53.
Swarts DR, Scarpa A, Corbo V, et al. MEN1 gene mutation and reduced expression are associated with poor prognosis in pulmonary carcinoids. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014;99:E374.
54.
Fernandez-Cuesta L, Peifer M, Lu X, et al. Frequent mutations in chromatin-remodelling genes in pulmonary carcinoids. Nat Commun 2014;5:3518.
55.
Peifer M, Fernández-Cuesta L, Sos ML, et al. Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer. Nat Genet 2012;44:1104.
56.
LaPoint RJ, Bourne PA, Wang HL, et al. Coexpression of c-kit and bcl-2 in small cell carcinoma and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:401.
57.
Coppola D, Clarke M, Landreneau R, et al. Bcl-2, p53, CD44, and CD44v6 isoform expression in neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. Mod Pathol 1996;9:484.
58.
Collaud S, Tischler V, Atanassoff A, et al. Lung neuroendocrine tumors: Correlation of ubiquitinylation and sumoylation with nucleo-cytosolic partitioning of PTEN. BMC Cancer 2015;15:74.
59.
Komatsu H, Kakehashi A, Nishiyama N, et al. Complexin-2 (CPLX2) as a potential prognostic biomarker in human lung high grade neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Biomark 2013;13:171.
60.
Basu S. The scope and potentials of functional radionuclide imaging towards advancing personalized medicine in oncology: Emphasis on PET-CT. Discov Med 2012;13:65.
61.
Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006.
62.
Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, et al. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011;258:906.
63.
Basu S, Kwee TC, Gatenby R, et al. Evolving role of molecular imaging with PET in detecting and characterizing heterogeneity of cancer tissue at the primary and metastatic sites, a plausible explanation for failed attempts to cure malignant disorders. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:987.
64.
Kwee TC, Basu S, Saboury B, et al. A new dimension of FDG-PET interpretation: Assessment of tumor biology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1158.
65.
Basu S. Should grade of tracer uptake on somatostatin receptor-targeted imaging be the major determinant and break the barrier of histopathologic criteria for determining the suitability of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy? J Nucl Med 2013;54:2018.
66.
Papageorgis P, Cheng K, Ozturk S, et al. Smad4 inactivation promotes malignancy and drug resistance of colon cancer. Cancer Res 2011;71:998.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
Volume 31 • Issue Number 3 • April 2016
Pages: 75 - 84
PubMed: 27093341
Copyright
Copyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
History
Published online: 19 April 2016
Published in print: April 2016
Authors
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.