Analytic Validation of the Automated Bone Scan Index As an Imaging Biomarker to Standardize Quantitative Changes in Bone Scans of Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal J Nucl Med

Specialty Nuclear Medicine

Date 2015 Aug 29

PMID 26315832

Citations 23

Authors

Aseem Anand

Michael J Morris

Reza Kaboteh

Lena Bath

May Sadik

Peter Gjertsson

Milan Lomsky

Lars Edenbrandt

David Minarik

Anders Bjartell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Unlabelled: A reproducible and quantitative imaging biomarker is needed to standardize the evaluation of changes in bone scans of prostate cancer patients with skeletal metastasis. We performed a series of analytic validation studies to evaluate the performance of the automated bone scan index (BSI) as an imaging biomarker in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Methods: Three separate analytic studies were performed to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of the automated BSI. Simulation study: bone scan simulations with predefined tumor burdens were created to assess accuracy and precision. Fifty bone scans were simulated with a tumor burden ranging from low to high disease confluence (0.10-13.0 BSI). A second group of 50 scans was divided into 5 subgroups, each containing 10 simulated bone scans, corresponding to BSI values of 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0. Repeat bone scan study: to assess the reproducibility in a routine clinical setting, 2 repeat bone scans were obtained from metastatic prostate cancer patients after a single 600-MBq (99m)Tc-methylene diphosphonate injection. Follow-up bone scan study: 2 follow-up bone scans of metastatic prostate cancer patients were analyzed to determine the interobserver variability between the automated BSIs and the visual interpretations in assessing changes. The automated BSI was generated using the upgraded EXINI bone(BSI) software (version 2). The results were evaluated using linear regression, Pearson correlation, Cohen κ measurement, coefficient of variation, and SD.

Results: Linearity of the automated BSI interpretations in the range of 0.10-13.0 was confirmed, and Pearson correlation was observed at 0.995 (n = 50; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-0.99; P < 0.0001). The mean coefficient of variation was less than 20%. The mean BSI difference between the 2 repeat bone scans of 35 patients was 0.05 (SD = 0.15), with an upper confidence limit of 0.30. The interobserver agreement in the automated BSI interpretations was more consistent (κ = 0.96, P < 0.0001) than the qualitative visual assessment of the changes (κ = 0.70, P < 0.0001) was in the bone scans of 173 patients.

Conclusion: The automated BSI provides a consistent imaging biomarker capable of standardizing quantitative changes in the bone scans of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Citing Articles

Skeleton Segmentation on Bone Scintigraphy for BSI Computation.

Yu P, Lai Y, Chen Y, Cheng D Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(13).

PMID: 37443695 PMC: 10340357. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13132302.

Quantitative assessment of PSMA PET response to therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer using an automated imaging platform for disease identification and measurement.

Duriseti S, Berenji G, Tsai S, Rettig M, Nickols N Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2023; 7(1):7.

PMID: 37009941 PMC: 10068685. DOI: 10.1186/s41824-023-00165-6.

Deep learning based identification of bone scintigraphies containing metastatic bone disease foci.

Ibrahim A, Akshayaa Vaidyanathan , Primakov S, Belmans F, Bottari F, Refaee T Cancer Imaging. 2023; 23(1):12.

PMID: 36698217 PMC: 9875407. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00524-3.

Automated classification of PET-CT lesions in lung cancer: An independent validation study.

Borrelli P, Gongora J, Kaboteh R, Enqvist O, Edenbrandt L Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2022; 42(5):327-332.

PMID: 35760559 PMC: 9540653. DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12773.

Automated Bone Scan Index to Optimize Prostate Cancer Working Group Radiographic Progression Criteria for Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Anand A, Heller G, Fox J, Danila D, Bjartell A, Edenbrandt L Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022; 20(3):270-277.

PMID: 35279418 PMC: 10039455. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.02.002.

References

Armstrong A, Kaboteh R, Carducci M, Damber J, Stadler W, Hansen M . Assessment of the bone scan index in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of tasquinimod in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Urol Oncol. 2014; 32(8):1308-16. PMC: 6341998. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.08.006. View

Segars W, Sturgeon G, Mendonca S, Grimes J, Tsui B . 4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research. Med Phys. 2010; 37(9):4902-15. PMC: 2941518. DOI: 10.1118/1.3480985. View

Imbriaco M, Larson S, Yeung H, Mawlawi O, Erdi Y, Venkatraman E . A new parameter for measuring metastatic bone involvement by prostate cancer: the Bone Scan Index. Clin Cancer Res. 1998; 4(7):1765-72. View

Goodsaid F, Frueh F . Biomarker qualification pilot process at the US Food and Drug Administration. AAPS J. 2007; 9(1):E105-8. PMC: 2751298. DOI: 10.1208/aapsj0901010. View

Sabbatini P, Larson S, Kremer A, Zhang Z, Sun M, Yeung H . Prognostic significance of extent of disease in bone in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(3):948-57. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.948. View

Ljungberg M, Strand S . A Monte Carlo program for the simulation of scintillation camera characteristics. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1989; 29(4):257-72. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2607(89)90111-9. View

Sadik M, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Jarund A, Edenbrandt L . Improved classifications of planar whole-body bone scans using a computer-assisted diagnosis system: a multicenter, multiple-reader, multiple-case study. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50(3):368-75. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.058883. View

Ulmert D, Kaboteh R, Fox J, Savage C, Evans M, Lilja H . A novel automated platform for quantifying the extent of skeletal tumour involvement in prostate cancer patients using the Bone Scan Index. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(1):78-84. PMC: 3402084. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.037. View

Brown M, Chu G, Kim H, Allen-Auerbach M, Poon C, Bridges J . Computer-aided quantitative bone scan assessment of prostate cancer treatment response. Nucl Med Commun. 2012; 33(4):384-94. PMC: 3294499. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283503ebf. View

10.

Jacobs S . Spread of prostatic cancer to bone. Urology. 1983; 21(4):337-44. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(83)90147-4. View

11.

Kaboteh R, Gjertsson P, Leek H, Lomsky M, Ohlsson M, Sjostrand K . Progression of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer - automated detection of new lesions and calculation of bone scan index. EJNMMI Res. 2013; 3(1):64. PMC: 3751570. DOI: 10.1186/2191-219X-3-64. View

12.

Heidenreich A, Bastian P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T . EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(1):124-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046. View

13.

Dennis E, Jia X, Mezheritskiy I, Stephenson R, Schoder H, Fox J . Bone scan index: a quantitative treatment response biomarker for castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(5):519-24. PMC: 3295554. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.5791. View

14.

Sadik M, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Jarund A, Edenbrandt L . Quality of planar whole-body bone scan interpretations--a nationwide survey. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35(8):1464-72. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0721-5. View

15.

Sadik M, Hamadeh I, Nordblom P, Suurkula M, Hoglund P, Ohlsson M . Computer-assisted interpretation of planar whole-body bone scans. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(12):1958-65. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.055061. View