Highdicom: a Python Library for Standardized Encoding of Image Annotations and Machine Learning Model Outputs in Pathology and Radiology.

Machine learning (ML) is revolutionizing image-based diagnostics in pathology and radiology. ML models have shown promising results in research settings, but the lack of interoperability between ML systems and enterprise medical imaging systems has been a major barrier for clinical integration and evaluation. The DICOM® standard specifies information object definitions (IODs) and services for the representation and communication of digital images and related information, including image-derived annotations and analysis results. However, the complexity of the standard represents an obstacle for its adoption in the ML community and creates a need for software libraries and tools that simplify working with datasets in DICOM format. Here we present the highdicom library, which provides a high-level application programming interface (API) for the Python programming language that abstracts low-level details of the standard and enables encoding and decoding of image-derived information in DICOM format in a few lines of Python code. The highdicom library leverages NumPy arrays for efficient data representation and ties into the extensive Python ecosystem for image processing and machine learning. Simultaneously, by simplifying creation and parsing of DICOM-compliant files, highdicom achieves interoperability with the medical imaging systems that hold the data used to train and run ML models, and ultimately communicate and store model outputs for clinical use. We demonstrate through experiments with slide microscopy and computed tomography imaging, that, by bridging these two ecosystems, highdicom enables developers and researchers to train and evaluate state-of-the-art ML models in pathology and radiology while remaining compliant with the DICOM standard and interoperable with clinical systems at all stages. To promote standardization of ML research and streamline the ML model development and deployment process, we made the library available free and open-source at https://github.com/herrmannlab/highdicom .

The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping.

Background Radiomic features may quantify characteristics present in medical imaging. However, the lack of standardized definitions and validated reference values have hampered clinical use. Purpose To standardize a set of 174 radiomic features. Materials and Methods Radiomic features were assessed in three phases. In phase I, 487 features were derived from the basic set of 174 features. Twenty-five research teams with unique radiomics software implementations computed feature values directly from a digital phantom, without any additional image processing. In phase II, 15 teams computed values for 1347 derived features using a CT image of a patient with lung cancer and predefined image processing configurations. In both phases, consensus among the teams on the validity of tentative reference values was measured through the frequency of the modal value and classified as follows: less than three matches, weak; three to five matches, moderate; six to nine matches, strong; 10 or more matches, very strong. In the final phase (phase III), a public data set of multimodality images (CT, fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and T1-weighted MRI) from 51 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma was used to prospectively assess reproducibility of standardized features. Results Consensus on reference values was initially weak for 232 of 302 features (76.8%) at phase I and 703 of 1075 features (65.4%) at phase II. At the final iteration, weak consensus remained for only two of 487 features (0.4%) at phase I and 19 of 1347 features (1.4%) at phase II. Strong or better consensus was achieved for 463 of 487 features (95.1%) at phase I and 1220 of 1347 features (90.6%) at phase II. Overall, 169 of 174 features were standardized in the first two phases. In the final validation phase (phase III), most of the 169 standardized features could be excellently reproduced (166 with CT; 164 with PET; and 164 with MRI). Conclusion A set of 169 radiomics features was standardized, which enabled verification and calibration of different radiomics software. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kuhl and Truhn in this issue.

Co-Clinical Imaging Metadata Information (CIMI) for Cancer Research to Promote Open Science, Standardization, and Reproducibility in Preclinical Imaging.

Preclinical imaging is a critical component in translational research with significant complexities in workflow and site differences in deployment. Importantly, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) precision medicine initiative emphasizes the use of translational co-clinical oncology models to address the biological and molecular bases of cancer prevention and treatment. The use of oncology models, such as patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), has ushered in an era of co-clinical trials by which preclinical studies can inform clinical trials and protocols, thus bridging the translational divide in cancer research. Similarly, preclinical imaging fills a translational gap as an enabling technology for translational imaging research. Unlike clinical imaging, where equipment manufacturers strive to meet standards in practice at clinical sites, standards are neither fully developed nor implemented in preclinical imaging. This fundamentally limits the collection and reporting of metadata to qualify preclinical imaging studies, thereby hindering open science and impacting the reproducibility of co-clinical imaging research. To begin to address these issues, the NCI co-clinical imaging research program (CIRP) conducted a survey to identify metadata requirements for reproducible quantitative co-clinical imaging. The enclosed consensus-based report summarizes co-clinical imaging metadata information (CIMI) to support quantitative co-clinical imaging research with broad implications for capturing co-clinical data, enabling interoperability and data sharing, as well as potentially leading to updates to the preclinical Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard.

Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. RESULTS: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation.