On May 3, 2008, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored open consensus conference was held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during the 2008 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Meeting. Approximately 100 experts and stakeholders summarized the current understanding of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and reached consensus on the use of DW-MRI as a cancer imaging biomarker. DW-MRI should be tested as an imaging biomarker in the context of well-defined clinical trials, by adding DW-MRI to existing NCI-sponsored trials, particularly those with tissue sampling or survival indicators. Where possible, DW-MRI measurements should be compared with histologic indices including cellularity and tissue response. There is a need for tissue equivalent diffusivity phantoms; meanwhile, simple fluid-filled phantoms should be used. Monoexponential assessments of apparent diffusion coefficient values should use two b values (>100 and between 500 and 1000 mm2/sec depending on the application). Free breathing with multiple acquisitions is superior to complex gating techniques. Baseline patient reproducibility studies should be part of study designs. Both region of interest and histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements should be obtained. Standards for measurement, analysis, and display are needed. Annotated data from validation studies (along with outcome measures) should be made publicly available. Magnetic resonance imaging vendors should be engaged in this process. The NCI should establish a task force of experts (physicists, radiologists, and oncologists) to plan, organize technical aspects, and conduct pilot trials. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network infrastructure may be suitable for these purposes. There is an extraordinary opportunity for DW-MRI to evolve into a clinically valuable imaging tool, potentially important for drug development.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing ‘translational gaps’ through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored ‘roadmap’. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

Assessment of radiation and chemotherapy efficacy for brain cancer patients is traditionally accomplished by measuring changes in tumor size several months after therapy has been administered. The ability to use noninvasive imaging during the early stages of fractionated therapy to determine whether a particular treatment will be effective would provide an opportunity to optimize individual patient management and avoid unnecessary systemic toxicity, expense, and treatment delays. We investigated whether changes in the Brownian motion of water within tumor tissue as quantified by using diffusion MRI could be used as a biomarker for early prediction of treatment response in brain cancer patients. Twenty brain tumor patients were examined by standard and diffusion MRI before initiation of treatment. Additional images were acquired 3 weeks after initiation of chemo-and͞or radiotherapy. Images were coregistered to pretreatment scans, and changes in tumor water diffusion values were calculated and displayed as a functional diffusion map (fDM) for correlation with clinical response. Of the 20 patients imaged during the course of therapy, 6 were classified as having a partial response, 6 as stable disease, and 8 as progressive disease. The fDMs were found to predict patient response at 3 weeks from the start of treatment, revealing that early changes in tumor diffusion values could be used as a prognostic indicator of subsequent volumetric tumor response. Overall, fDM analysis provided an early biomarker for predicting treatment response in brain tumor patients. diffusion MRI ͉ therapeutic response

Technologic advances enable performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at ultrahigh b-values, where standard monoexponential model analysis may not apply. Rather, non-Gaussian water diffusion properties emerge, which in cellular tissues are, in part, influenced by the intracellular environment that is not well evaluated by conventional DWI. The novel technique, diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), enables characterization of non-Gaussian water diffusion behavior. More advanced mathematical curve fitting of the signal intensity decay curve using the DKI model provides an additional parameter Kapp that presumably reflects heterogeneity and irregularity of cellular microstructure, as well as the amount of interfaces within cellular tissues. Although largely applied for neural applications over the past decade, a small number of studies have recently explored DKI outside the brain. The most investigated organ is the prostate, with preliminary studies suggesting improved tumor detection and grading using DKI. Although still largely in the research phase, DKI is being explored in wider clinical settings. When assessing extracranial applications of DKI, careful attention to details with which body radiologists may currently be unfamiliar is important to ensure reliable results. Accordingly, a robust understanding of DKI is necessary for radiologists to better understand the meaning of DKI-derived metrics in the context of different tumors and how these metrics vary between tumor types and in response to treatment. In this review, we outline DKI principles, propose biostructural basis for observations, provide a comparison with standard monoexponential fitting and the apparent diffusion coefficient, report on extracranial clinical investigations to date, and recommend technical considerations for implementation in body imaging.

radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2373041639/DC1