QIN Benchmarks for Clinical Translation of Quantitative Imaging Tools

Overview

Journal Tomography

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Radiology

Date 2019 Mar 12

PMID 30854436

Citations 10

Authors

Keyvan Farahani

Darrell Tata

Robert J Nordstrom

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The Quantitative Imaging Network of the National Cancer Institute is in its 10th year of operation, and research teams within the network are developing and validating clinical decision support software tools to measure or predict the response of cancers to various therapies. As projects progress from development activities to validation of quantitative imaging tools and methods, it is important to evaluate the performance and clinical readiness of the tools before committing them to prospective clinical trials. A variety of tests, including special challenges and tool benchmarking, have been instituted within the network to prepare the quantitative imaging tools for service in clinical trials. This article highlights the benchmarking process and provides a current evaluation of several tools in their transition from development to validation.

Citing Articles

Post-acquisition standardization of positron emission tomography images.

Mortazi A, Udupa J, Odhner D, Tong Y, Torigian D Front Nucl Med. 2024; 3.

PMID: 39015756 PMC: 11251705. DOI: 10.3389/fnume.2023.1210931.

A Quantitative Multiparametric MRI Analysis Platform for Estimation of Robust Imaging Biomarkers in Clinical Oncology.

LoCastro E, Paudyal R, Konar A, LaViolette P, Akin O, Hatzoglou V Tomography. 2023; 9(6):2052-2066.

PMID: 37987347 PMC: 10661267. DOI: 10.3390/tomography9060161.

A Review on the Use of Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials: Quality Assurance Strategies for Technical Validation.

Chauvie S, Mazzoni L, ODoherty J Tomography. 2023; 9(5):1876-1902.

PMID: 37888741 PMC: 10610870. DOI: 10.3390/tomography9050149.

In vivo tumor immune microenvironment phenotypes correlate with inflammation and vasculature to predict immunotherapy response.

Sahu A, Kose K, Kraehenbuehl L, Byers C, Holland A, Tembo T Nat Commun. 2022; 13(1):5312.

PMID: 36085288 PMC: 9463451. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-32738-7.

Parametric Response Mapping of FLAIR MRI Provides an Early Indication of Progression Risk in Glioblastoma.

Hoff B, Lemasson B, Chenevert T, Luker G, Tsien C, Amouzandeh G Acad Radiol. 2020; 28(12):1711-1720.

PMID: 32928633 PMC: 7947036. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.08.015.

References

Huang B . Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies. Pharm Stat. 2017; 17(1):49-60. DOI: 10.1002/pst.1835. View

Hylton N . Vascularity assessment of breast lesions with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1999; 7(2):411-20, x. View

Park J, Lee S, Song S, Kim K, Kim W, Jung C . Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003; 33(10):533-7. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyg093. View

Mountz J, Yankeelov T, Rubin D, Buatti J, Erikson B, Fennessy F . Letter to cancer center directors: Progress in quantitative imaging as a means to predict and/or measure tumor response in cancer therapy trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(19):2115-6. PMC: 4861229. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8866. View

Zhao X, Zhang Y, Yu Y . Use of F-FDG PET/CT to predict short-term outcomes early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in stage III adenocarcinoma of the lung. Oncol Lett. 2018; 16(1):1067-1072. PMC: 6063030. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.8748. View

Huang W, Li X, Chen Y, Li X, Chang M, Oborski M . Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: a multicenter data analysis challenge. Transl Oncol. 2014; 7(1):153-66. PMC: 3998693. DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13838. View

Malyarenko D, Fedorov A, Bell L, Prah M, Hectors S, Arlinghaus L . Toward uniform implementation of parametric map Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine standard in multisite quantitative diffusion imaging studies. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017; 5(1):011006. PMC: 5658654. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011006. View

Yankeelov T, Mankoff D, Schwartz L, Lieberman F, Buatti J, Mountz J . Quantitative Imaging in Cancer Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(2):284-90. PMC: 4717912. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3336. View

Balagurunathan Y, Beers A, Kalpathy-Cramer J, McNitt-Gray M, Hadjiiski L, Zhao B . Semi-automated pulmonary nodule interval segmentation using the NLST data. Med Phys. 2018; 45(3):1093-1107. PMC: 5952359. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12766. View

10.

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout R, Granton P . Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48(4):441-6. PMC: 4533986. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036. View

11.

Kalpathy-Cramer J, Mamomov A, Zhao B, Lu L, Cherezov D, Napel S . Radiomics of Lung Nodules: A Multi-Institutional Study of Robustness and Agreement of Quantitative Imaging Features. Tomography. 2017; 2(4):430-437. PMC: 5279995. DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2016.00235. View

12.

Therasse P, Arbuck S, Eisenhauer E, Wanders J, Kaplan R, Rubinstein L . New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(3):205-16. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205. View

13.

Padhani A, Ollivier L . The RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol. 2001; 74(887):983-6. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.74.887.740983. View

14.

Malyarenko D, Wilmes L, Arlinghaus L, Jacobs M, Huang W, Helmer K . QIN DAWG Validation of Gradient Nonlinearity Bias Correction Workflow for Quantitative Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Multicenter Trials. Tomography. 2017; 2(4):396-405. PMC: 5241082. DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2016.00214. View

15.

Kalpathy-Cramer J, Zhao B, Goldgof D, Gu Y, Wang X, Yang H . A Comparison of Lung Nodule Segmentation Algorithms: Methods and Results from a Multi-institutional Study. J Digit Imaging. 2016; 29(4):476-87. PMC: 4942386. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9859-z. View

16.

Tan Y, Schwartz L, Zhao B . Segmentation of lung lesions on CT scans using watershed, active contours, and Markov random field. Med Phys. 2013; 40(4):043502. PMC: 3618093. DOI: 10.1118/1.4793409. View

17.

O J, Luber B, Leal J, Wang H, Bolejack V, Schuetze S . Response to Early Treatment Evaluated with 18F-FDG PET and PERCIST 1.0 Predicts Survival in Patients with Ewing Sarcoma Family of Tumors Treated with a Monoclonal Antibody to the Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 Receptor. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(5):735-40. PMC: 5548359. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.162412. View

18.

Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

19.

Beichel R, Smith B, Bauer C, Ulrich E, Ahmadvand P, Budzevich M . Multi-site quality and variability analysis of 3D FDG PET segmentations based on phantom and clinical image data. Med Phys. 2017; 44(2):479-496. PMC: 5834232. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12041. View

20.

Carter B, Bhosale P, Yang W . Immunotherapy and the role of imaging. Cancer. 2018; 124(14):2906-2922. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31349. View