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.

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.

Methods and resources for physics education in radiology residency programs: survey results.

Over the past 2 years, ongoing efforts have been made to reevaluate and restructure the way physics education is provided to radiology residents. Program directors and faculty from North American radiology residency programs were surveyed about how physics is being taught and what resources are currently being used for their residents. Substantial needs were identified for additional educational resources in physics, better integration of physics into clinical training, and a standardized physics curriculum closely linked to the initial certification examination of the American Board of Radiology.

Education techniques for lifelong learning: international variations in initial certification and maintenance of certification in radiology: a multinational survey.

A survey was sent to representatives of national and regional radiology societies around the world regarding the status of certification, maintenance of certification (MOC), and continuing medical education (CME) requirements. Data were forthcoming from 24 countries (response rate, 71%), including the United States. The survey results indicated that most responding countries now have a standardized process and requirements for initial certification of diagnostic and therapeutic radiologists. Similarly, most reporting countries now have some form of mandatory CME, although the degree to which compliance is tracked varies. There is considerable heterogeneity in what these countries require for recertification or MOC, and the development of such requirements is cited as a goal for many of the countries. The standardization and institutionalization of certification and recertification requirements is in rapid evolution globally.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the best-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research based on these characteristics.

Web modules on professionalism and ethics.

Health care disciplines have always held resolutely to a commitment to professionalism and high ethical standards. With the present emphasis on public accountability, professionalism and ethics are receiving enhanced attention in health care education and practice. A challenge for radiologists, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists is to define the scope and depth of knowledge about professionalism and ethics that are necessary for the practice of the disciplines. A further challenge is to develop accessible educational materials that encompass this required knowledge. About 2 years ago, the ABR Foundation decided to address these challenges through the development of an ethics and professionalism curriculum and production of a series of Web-based educational modules that follow the curriculum. Six organizations agreed initially to contribute financially to construction of the curriculum and modules and were later joined by a seventh. The curriculum was developed by the ABR Foundation and included in a request for proposals that was widely distributed. Teams of authors for each of 10 modules were selected from respondents to the request for proposals. As the modules were developed, they were reviewed in 3 successive stages, including peer review by members of the ACR Committee on Professionalism and the RSNA-ACR Task Force on an Ethics Curriculum. After revisions were prepared in response to the reviews, the modules were translated into a format compatible with the e-learning platform on which they are mounted. The modules are now available to all who wish to study them.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the best-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research based on these characteristics.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the most well-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research on the basis of these characteristics.