Download
imaging in oncology clinical trials n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials

Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials

258 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials Susan Galbraith Clinical Discovery Bristol-Myers Squibb

  2. What can we see? • Microvasculature • Blood volume - MRI, PET • Vessel permeability - MRI • Blood flow - PET, MRI, SPECT • Hypoxia - MRI, PET • VEGF - PET

  3. What can we see? • Gene expression - optical imaging, PET • Enzyme activation - optical imaging, MRI • Receptor expression/occupancy - PET, MRI • Apoptosis - MRI, PET, SPECT • Cell proliferation - PET • Glucose metabolism - PET • Membrane turnover - PET

  4. Imaging Blood Flow -15O -PET Yamaguchi et al Cancer 2000

  5. CT PET -Anatomy and Glucose Metabolism Ken Krohn University of Washington

  6. FLT PET - Imaging Proliferation • FLT (3’- deoxy-3’ – fluorothymidine) is phosphorylated by thymidine kinase 1 and trapped within cells • Since TK-1 levels increase around 10-fold in S-phase, retention should theoretically reflect DNA synthesis Shields et al. Nature Med 1998

  7. Imaging Proliferation Grant Macarthur - Peter Mac, Australia

  8. DCE-MRI • Using Gd-DTPA - composite of vessel permeability, surface area and blood flow • Using high molecular weight contrast agents - permeability, blood volume • Need arterial input function to determine blood flow

  9. DCE-MRI - Ktrans

  10. MRI - Imaging of permeability and blood volume • Need high molecular weight contrast agent • Albumin- GdDTPA - Overexpression of VEGF 165 drives peritumor interstitial convection and induces lymphatic drain (Dafni et al Cancer Res 2002) • Superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agents

  11. What can imaging do for you?…. Novel imaging technology has the potential to • assist lead compound selection • enable earlier Go/No Go decisions • have greater confidence about those decisions • save patients from treatment with drugs destined to fail • save money How to utilize this potential to truly affect decisions in drug development ?

  12. Objectives of Phase I Oncology Trials • Safety • Pharmacokinetics • Dose selection • cytotoxics - ‘maximum tolerated dose’ • ‘targeted’ drugs - ‘optimal biological dose’

  13. What answers would help a novel ‘targeted’ oncology drug? • Pre-clinical/Phase 1 • does the drug hit the target in the tumor • what is the exposure response / time course of response • Phase I/II • how does hitting target relate to anti-tumor efficacy • any early indicators of toxicity • Phase II/III • can tumor response be predicted by target expression/ activation • differentiation from competitors

  14. Definition of Go/No Go • Drug does not hit target • Do not achieve desired effect size at tolerable doses • Selectivity of effect in tumor/normal tissues

  15. Where does imaging fit in development? • SAD (if TI allows) - rapidly define single dose PK, tolerability, ability to reach exposure range for efficacy • MAD - imaging or other biomarker to demonstrate biological activity, dose response and PK/PD relationship

  16. MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology FDHT-PET Pre-flutamide Post-flutamide

  17. MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology FDHT-PET Pre Flutamide Post Flutamide Transaxial Patient with prostate cancer and bony metastasis - Right ilium

  18. Phase I trial • Dose escalate ? To MTD (depends on TI) • Expand cohorts for imaging studies (n depends on reproducibility and effect size of interest) • Need same imaging protocol implemented at all sites • Quality control • Centralized data analysis

  19. Implications • Technology used - relatively established vs ‘cutting edge’ • Definition of every stage of imaging process • Reproducibility studies needed beforemeasurement of treatment effect • SDV as detailed as for clinical aspects of study • Site selection • Consensus on methodology e.g. EORTC FDG PET recommendations 1999

  20. Reproducibility studies NMR in Biomed 2002, 15, p132-142

  21. Reproducibility Studies • Determine 95% limits of change for individuals and for groups • Identify ‘key determinants’ of reproducibility - how much is dependent on subjective definition of ‘ROI’s etc • Learning curve for technique • Project cohort size needed for measurement of treatment effect

  22. Choice of parameter • DCE-MRI - gradient, enhancement, AUC, Ktrans, kep, ve • FDG PET - dynamic, SUV - which SUV? • Balance - • reproducibility • sensitivity to treatment effect • validity of assumptions • availability • heterogeneity effect

  23. DCE-MRI response to CA4P Galbraith et al J Clin Oncol In Press

  24. Choice of patient population • Homogeneous tumor type, site • Ability to obtain good quality images - respiration/movement artefact • Ability to accrue trial within reasonable time

  25. Phase II - Efficacy • Is stable disease indicative of anti-tumor efficacy? • Effects on tumor metabolism/ proliferation/ microvasculature seen before effects on tumor size • Are changes in proliferation/ metabolism seen in higher proportion of patients than proportion with PR/CR

  26. MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology 18F-FLT PET Images before Treatment Coronal Transverse Coronal Transverse heart tumor liver tumor heart heart tumor tumor intestine intestine bladder bladder 1 h-post injection 2 h-post injection

  27. DES tumor Castration tumor MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology 18F-FLT microPET®; Monitoring Therapy Control By week 3 all control mice were euthanized following Institutional Regulations on tumor burden. tumor Before 1week 2 week 3 week

  28. MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology Change in Tumor Volume * ** * only n=2 survived to week 2 ** no animals survived

  29. MIR Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology Change of 18F-FLT Uptake in Tumor * ** * only n=2 survived to week 2 ** no animals survived

  30. Rationale for use of FDG PET for response assessment • Earlier response assessment • Better predictor of clinical benefit than conventional imaging - biology rather than anatomy • ? Increased number of responders - more information on ‘stable disease’

  31. Will FLT be more informative than FDG for response assessment? FDG FLT Grant Macarthur - Peter Mac, Australia

  32. Phase II/III - response prediction • Whole tumor imaging characteristics vs tissue biopsy • Implications of tumor heterogeneity • Serial non-invasive images vs serial biopsies

  33. Potential utility of imaging.. • Imaging of receptor occupancy/ enzyme inhibition • Pre-clinical correlation with anti-tumor effect • Understanding of PK/PD relationship • Translatable technology from pre-clinic to clinic • Determination of reproducibility in clinic • High quality, multi-site imaging in trials • Early indication of efficacy • Response prediction

  34. How do we get there? • Collaboration with academia - long term • limits of the technologies possible now • translational studies • what’s around the corner? • Work on QA/ imaging monitoring/analysis • delivery of high quality imaging in trials • Develop internal understanding of and expertise in imaging technology