Current and future cancer staging after neoadjuvant treatment for solid tumors.

Until recently, cancer registries have only collected cancer clinical stage at diagnosis, before any therapy, and pathological stage after surgical resection, provided no treatment has been given before the surgery, but they have not collected stage data after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Because NAT is increasingly being used to treat a variety of tumors, it has become important to make the distinction between both the clinical and the pathological assessment without NAT and the assessment after NAT to avoid any misunderstanding of the significance of the clinical and pathological findings. It also is important that cancer registries collect data after NAT to assess response and effectiveness of this treatment approach on a population basis. The prefix y is used to denote stage after NAT. Currently, cancer registries of the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer only partially collect y stage data, and data on the clinical response to NAT (yc or posttherapy clinical information) are not collected or recorded in a standardized fashion. In addition to NAT, nonoperative management after radiation and chemotherapy is being used with increasing frequency in rectal cancer and may be expanded to other treatment sites. Using examples from breast, rectal, and esophageal cancers, the pathological and imaging changes seen after NAT are reviewed to demonstrate appropriate staging.

Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers.

Existing quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are associated with known biological tissue characteristics and follow a well-understood path of technical, biological and clinical validation before incorporation into clinical trials. In radiomics, novel data-driven processes extract numerous visually imperceptible statistical features from the imaging data with no a priori assumptions on their correlation with biological processes. The selection of relevant features (radiomic signature) and incorporation into clinical trials therefore requires additional considerations to ensure meaningful imaging endpoints. Also, the number of radiomic features tested means that power calculations would result in sample sizes impossible to achieve within clinical trials. This article examines how the process of standardising and validating data-driven imaging biomarkers differs from those based on biological associations. Radiomic signatures are best developed initially on datasets that represent diversity of acquisition protocols as well as diversity of disease and of normal findings, rather than within clinical trials with standardised and optimised protocols as this would risk the selection of radiomic features being linked to the imaging process rather than the pathology. Normalisation through discretisation and feature harmonisation are essential pre-processing steps. Biological correlation may be performed after the technical and clinical validity of a radiomic signature is established, but is not mandatory. Feature selection may be part of discovery within a radiomics-specific trial or represent exploratory endpoints within an established trial; a previously validated radiomic signature may even be used as a primary/secondary endpoint, particularly if associations are demonstrated with specific biological processes and pathways being targeted within clinical trials. KEY POINTS: • Data-driven processes like radiomics risk false discoveries due to high-dimensionality of the dataset compared to sample size, making adequate diversity of the data, cross-validation and external validation essential to mitigate the risks of spurious associations and overfitting. • Use of radiomic signatures within clinical trials requires multistep standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and data mining processes. • Biological correlation may be established after clinical validation but is not mandatory.

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.

Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation.

Recommendations towards standards for quantitative MRI (qMRI) and outstanding needs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.

Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Although investigators in the imaging community have been active in developing and evaluating quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs), the development and implementation of QIBs have been hampered by the inconsistent or incorrect use of terminology or methods for technical performance and statistical concepts. Technical performance is an assessment of how a test performs in reference objects or subjects under controlled conditions. In this article, some of the relevant statistical concepts are reviewed, methods that can be used for evaluating and comparing QIBs are described, and some of the technical performance issues related to imaging biomarkers are discussed. More consistent and correct use of terminology and study design principles will improve clinical research, advance regulatory science, and foster better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

An Online Repository for Pre-Clinical Imaging Protocols (PIPs).

Providing method descriptions that are more detailed than currently available in typical peer reviewed journals has been identified as an actionable area for improvement. In the biochemical and cell biology space, this need has been met through the creation of new journals focused on detailed protocols and materials sourcing. However, this format is not well suited for capturing instrument validation, detailed imaging protocols, and extensive statistical analysis. Furthermore, the need for additional information must be counterbalanced by the additional time burden placed upon researchers who may be already overtasked. To address these competing issues, this white paper describes protocol templates for positron emission tomography (PET), X-ray computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that can be leveraged by the broad community of quantitative imaging experts to write and self-publish protocols in protocols.io. Similar to the Structured Transparent Accessible Reproducible (STAR) or Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE) articles, authors are encouraged to publish peer reviewed papers and then to submit more detailed experimental protocols using this template to the online resource. Such protocols should be easy to use, readily accessible, readily searchable, considered open access, enable community feedback, editable, and citable by the author.

A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging.

Medical imaging has seen substantial and rapid technical advances during the past decade, including advances in image acquisition devices, processing and analysis software, and agents to enhance specificity. Traditionally, medical imaging has defined anatomy, but increasingly newer, more advanced, imaging technologies provide biochemical and physiologic information based on both static and dynamic modalities. These advanced technologies are important not only for detecting disease but for characterizing and assessing change of disease with time or therapy. Because of the rapidity of these advances, research to determine the utility of quantitative imaging in either clinical research or clinical practice has not had time to mature. Methods to appropriately develop, assess, regulate, and reimburse must be established for these advanced technologies. Efficient and methodical processes that meet the needs of stakeholders in the biomedical research community, therapeutics developers, and health care delivery enterprises will ultimately benefit individual patients. To help address this, the authors formed a collaborative program-the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. This program draws from the very successful precedent set by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise effort but is adapted to the needs of imaging science. Strategic guidance supporting the development, qualification, and deployment of quantitative imaging biomarkers will lead to improved standardization of imaging tests, proof of imaging test performance, and greater use of imaging to predict the biologic behavior of tissue and monitor therapy response. These, in turn, confer value to corporate stakeholders, providing incentives to bring new and innovative products to market.

The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is a randomized multicenter study comparing low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) with chest radiography in the screening of older current and former heavy smokers for early detection of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Five-year survival rates approach 70% with surgical resection of stage IA disease; however, more than 75% of individuals have incurable locally advanced or metastatic disease, the latter having a 5-year survival of less than 5%. It is plausible that treatment should be more effective and the likelihood of death decreased if asymptomatic lung cancer is detected through screening early enough in its preclinical phase. For these reasons, there is intense interest and intuitive appeal in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. The use of survival as the determinant of screening effectiveness is, however, confounded by the well-described biases of lead time, length, and overdiagnosis. Despite previous attempts, no test has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, an endpoint that circumvents screening biases and provides a definitive measure of benefit when assessed in a randomized controlled trial that enables comparison of mortality rates between screened individuals and a control group that does not undergo the screening intervention of interest. The NLST is such a trial. The rationale for and design of the NLST are presented.

Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

UNLABELLED: Quantitative imaging biomarkers could speed the development of new treatments for unmet medical needs and improve routine clinical care. However, it is not clear how the various regulatory and nonregulatory (eg, reimbursement) processes (often referred to as pathways) relate, nor is it clear which data need to be collected to support these different pathways most efficiently, given the time- and cost-intensive nature of doing so. The purpose of this article is to describe current thinking regarding these pathways emerging from diverse stakeholders interested and active in the definition, validation, and qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers and to propose processes to facilitate the development and use of quantitative imaging biomarkers. A flexible framework is described that may be adapted for each imaging application, providing mechanisms that can be used to develop, assess, and evaluate relevant biomarkers. From this framework, processes can be mapped that would be applicable to both imaging product development and to quantitative imaging biomarker development aimed at increasing the effectiveness and availability of quantitative imaging. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100800/-/DC1.

Magnetic resonance biomarkers in radiation oncology: The report of AAPM Task Group 294.

PURPOSE: A magnetic resonance (MR) biologic marker (biomarker) is a measurable quantitative characteristic that is an indicator of normal biological and pathogenetic processes or a response to therapeutic intervention derived from the MR imaging process. There is significant potential for MR biomarkers to facilitate personalized approaches to cancer care through more precise disease targeting by quantifying normal versus pathologic tissue function as well as toxicity to both radiation and chemotherapy. Both of which have the potential to increase the therapeutic ratio and provide earlier, more accurate monitoring of treatment response. The ongoing integration of MR into routine clinical radiation therapy (RT) planning and the development of MR guided radiation therapy systems is providing new opportunities for MR biomarkers to personalize and improve clinical outcomes. Their appropriate use, however, must be based on knowledge of the physical origin of the biomarker signal, the relationship to the underlying biological processes, and their strengths and limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide an educational resource describing MR biomarkers, the techniques used to quantify them, their strengths and weakness within the context of their application to radiation oncology so as to ensure their appropriate use and application within this field.

QIBA guidance: Computed tomography imaging for COVID-19 quantitative imaging applications.

As the COVID-19 pandemic impacts global populations, computed tomography (CT) lung imaging is being used in many countries to help manage patient care as well as to rapidly identify potentially useful quantitative COVID-19 CT imaging biomarkers. Quantitative COVID-19 CT imaging applications, typically based on computer vision modeling and artificial intelligence algorithms, include the potential for better methods to assess COVID-19 extent and severity, assist with differential diagnosis of COVID-19 versus other respiratory conditions, and predict disease trajectory. To help accelerate the development of robust quantitative imaging algorithms and tools, it is critical that CT imaging is obtained following best practices of the quantitative lung CT imaging community. Toward this end, the Radiological Society of North America's (RSNA) Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) CT Lung Density Profile Committee and CT Small Lung Nodule Profile Committee developed a set of best practices to guide clinical sites using quantitative imaging solutions and to accelerate the international development of quantitative CT algorithms for COVID-19. This guidance document provides quantitative CT lung imaging recommendations for COVID-19 CT imaging, including recommended CT image acquisition settings for contemporary CT scanners. Additional best practice guidance is provided on scientific publication reporting of quantitative CT imaging methods and the importance of contributing COVID-19 CT imaging datasets to open science research databases.

Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists' opinions and expectations at major U.S. cancer centers.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning imaging and tumor measurements in patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic mail survey was sent to 2,400 medical, gynecologic, and radiation oncologists at 55 U.S. National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers. The survey contained questions about departmental demographics, opinions regarding imaging for patients with cancer, PET/CT utilization, and utilization of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) system in therapy protocols that use imaging as a therapeutic end point. RESULTS: A total of 492 responses (21%) were received. Sixty percent (294) of respondents were medical oncologists, 9% (45) were gynecologic oncologists, 26% (127) were radiation oncologists, and 5% (25) answered "Other." Ninety-eight percent (431/438) of respondents provide clinical care, and 99% (420/425) have participated in clinical trials. Most respondents (94% [410/438]) expect some or all tumors to be measured at the time of standard initial clinical imaging. Over half (65% [275/426]) think that tumor measurements should be bidimensional. Only 25% (101/400) of respondents' institutions have department rules on the implementation of RECIST measurements. Sixty-eight percent of participants (269/397) think that RECIST is flawed but serviceable. Over half of respondents (56% [221/398]) were not familiar with RECIST 1.1 modifications. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists at National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer centers expect tumor measurements to be made in the routine imaging of patients with cancer. Almost two thirds of respondents think that bidimensional measurements of index lesions are satisfactory in routine oncologic imaging. Little consensus exists in the implementation of RECIST measurements for clinical trials at these centers.

Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine radiologists' opinions and practice patterns concerning tumor measurements in cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic mail survey was sent to 565 abdominal imaging radiologists at 55 U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cancer centers. The survey contained questions about departmental demographics, procedures for interpretation of imaging in oncologic patients, and opinions concerning the role of radiologists in using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) system for tumor measurements. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-six responses (52%) were received. The distribution of the size of the respondents' abdominal imaging groups was as follows: 1-5 (16/295, 5%), 6-10 (112/295, 38%), 11-15 (77/295, 26%), and > 20 (73/295, 25%). Most respondents dictate some but not all tumor measurements in the first clinical scan (236/270, 87%). For follow-up imaging, 95% (255/268) of respondents dictate tumor measurements for selected index lesions. Most respondents believe inclusion of tumor measurements in the first scan is the responsibility of the radiologist (248/262, 95%). Ninety percent of respondents (235/261) believe inclusion of several index lesion measurements is satisfactory to document disease activity. Eighty-two percent (214/260) of respondents were familiar with RECIST. Forty-two percent (110/262) of respondents' departments have a centralized process for approval of industry-sponsored oncologic trials in which imaging is an important component of the protocol end point. CONCLUSION: Most oncologic imaging at NCI-sponsored cancer centers includes tumor measurements on initial and follow-up imaging. Very few radiology departments have a centralized process for approval of clinical trial protocols that require imaging.

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Lung Imaging Confederation.

PURPOSE: To improve outcomes for lung cancer through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) early lung cancer detection. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer is developing the Early Lung Imaging Confederation (ELIC) to serve as an open-source, international, universally accessible environment to analyze large collections of quality-controlled LDCT images and associated biomedical data for research and routine screening care. METHODS: ELIC is an international confederation that allows access to efficiently analyze large numbers of high-quality computed tomography (CT) images with associated de-identified clinical information without moving primary imaging/clinical or imaging data from its local or regional site of origin. Rather, ELIC uses a cloud-based infrastructure to distribute analysis tools to the local site of the stored imaging and clinical data, thereby allowing for research and quality studies to proceed in a vendor-neutral, collaborative environment. ELIC's hub-and-spoke architecture will be deployed to permit analysis of CT images and associated data in a secure environment, without any requirement to reveal the data itself (ie, privacy protecting). Identifiable data remain under local control, so the resulting environment complies with national regulations and mitigates against privacy or data disclosure risk. RESULTS: The goal of pilot experiments is to connect image collections of LDCT scans that can be accurately analyzed in a fashion to support a global network using methodologies that can be readily scaled to accrued databases of sufficient size to develop and validate robust quantitative imaging tools. CONCLUSION: This initiative can rapidly accelerate improvements to the multidisciplinary management of early, curable lung cancer and other major thoracic diseases (eg, coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) visualized on a screening LDCT scan. The addition of a facile, quantitative CT scanner image quality conformance process is a unique step toward improving the reliability of clinical decision support with CT screening worldwide.

The Translational Research Working Group developmental pathway for image-based assessment modalities.

The Image-based assessment modality (IM) pathway refers to one of six Translational Research Working Group (TRWG) pathways that, together, describe the core domains of early translational cancer research. This pathway focuses on approaches that are based on the interaction of energy and living organisms to analyze tissue noninvasively so as to reveal properties relevant to the detection, diagnosis, or prognosis of cancer and precancer; or the response of the cancer to therapy. Examples include, but are not limited to, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, as well as contemporary contrast agents designed to probe specific molecular constituents of tumors. The IM pathway is presented as a general outline of the steps required for the effective development, optimization, testing, and validation of image-based modalities. The distinctive features of the IM pathway and issues encountered that represent obstacles to effective and efficient progress through the pathway are discussed. The IM pathway also forms a framework to identify opportunities to address current barriers and is expected to adapt and evolve as the field advances.

Task Group 174 Report: Utilization of [18 F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography ([18 F]FDG-PET) in Radiation Therapy.

The use of positron emission tomography (PET) in radiation therapy (RT) is rapidly increasing in the areas of staging, segmentation, treatment planning, and response assessment. The most common radiotracer is 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18 F]FDG), a glucose analog with demonstrated efficacy in cancer diagnosis and staging. However, diagnosis and RT planning are different endeavors with unique requirements, and very little literature is available for guiding physicists and clinicians in the utilization of [18 F]FDG-PET in RT. The two goals of this report are to educate and provide recommendations. The report provides background and education on current PET imaging systems, PET tracers, intensity quantification, and current utilization in RT (staging, segmentation, image registration, treatment planning, and therapy response assessment). Recommendations are provided on acceptance testing, annual and monthly quality assurance, scanning protocols to ensure consistency between interpatient scans and intrapatient longitudinal scans, reporting of patient and scan parameters in literature, requirements for incorporation of [18 F]FDG-PET in treatment planning systems, and image registration. The recommendations provided here are minimum requirements and are not meant to cover all aspects of the use of [18 F]FDG-PET for RT.

I2 imaging: cancer biology and the tumor microenvironment.

The use of imaging techniques to understand the role of the tumor microenvironment in cancer progression was the topic of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored think tank entitled "I2 Imaging: Cancer Biology and the Tumor Microenvironment," held in Alexandria, Virginia on June 8 to 10, 2006. Participants discussed both recent progress in the use of imaging to dissect cellular and molecular interactions within the tumor microenvironment and the challenges that remain. Recommendations made to the NCI included (a) holding an annual meeting at which biologists, clinicians, and imaging scientists could exchange data, facilitating new collaborations within this multidisciplinary field; (b) funding both research and training specifically designed to foster a cross-disciplinary focus; (c) creating and making available a variety of resources to interested investigators, such as a repository of stromal cells and extracellular matrix molecules; and (d) taking steps to encourage translation of the basic research findings into the clinic.

Functional imaging in lung cancer.

Accurate detection of the presence and extent of disease is vital in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer. While computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging tend to be the routine diagnostic modalities used in the management of lung cancer, there have been significant advances in the field of functional and molecular imaging. In this article, we review the performance of the functional imaging techniques that are currently available for the evaluation of non-small-cell lung cancer. The techniques range from evaluation of glucose metabolism in tumors with fluorodeoxyglucose, to evaluation of proliferation with fluorothymidine and evaluation of tumor hypoxia with agents such as fluoromisonidazole. Magnetic resonance imaging with an emphasis on dynamic contrast enhancement of tumors as well as detecting of malignant lymph nodes with targeted contrast agents is discussed. Emerging technologies such as lung imaging fluorescence endoscopy are considered. The role of functional imaging in planning, predicting response to, and evaluating effects of, various therapies is explored.