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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Critical Review of Current Approaches for Echocardiographic Reproducibility and Reliability Assessment in Clinical Research.

BACKGROUND: There is no broadly accepted standard method for assessing the quality of echocardiographic measurements in clinical research reports, despite the recognized importance of this information in assessing the quality of study results. METHODS: Twenty unique clinical studies were identified reporting echocardiographic data quality for determinations of left ventricular (LV) volumes (n = 13), ejection fraction (n = 12), mass (n = 9), outflow tract diameter (n = 3), and mitral Doppler peak early velocity (n = 4). To better understand the range of possible estimates of data quality and to compare their utility, reported reproducibility measures were tabulated, and de novo estimates were then calculated for missing measures, including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95% limits of agreement, coefficient of variation (CV), coverage probability, and total deviation index, for each variable for each study. RESULTS: The studies varied in approaches to reproducibility testing, sample size, and metrics assessed and values reported. Reported metrics included mean difference and its SD (n = 7 studies), ICC (n = 5), CV (n = 4), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (n = 4). Once de novo estimates of all missing indices were determined, reasonable reproducibility targets for each were identified as those achieved by the majority of studies. These included, for LV end-diastolic volume, ICC > 0.95, CV < 7%, and coverage probability > 0.93 within 30 mL; for LV ejection fraction, ICC > 0.85, CV < 8%, and coverage probability > 0.85 within 10%; and for LV mass, ICC > 0.85, CV < 10%, and coverage probability > 0.60 within 20 g. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of data quality in echocardiographic clinical research is infrequent, and methods vary substantially. A first step to standardizing echocardiographic quality reporting is to standardize assessments and reporting metrics. Potential benefits include clearer communication of data quality and the identification of achievable targets to benchmark quality improvement initiatives.

Statistical Issues in Testing Conformance with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) Profile Claims.

A major initiative of the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance is to develop standards-based documents called "Profiles," which describe one or more technical performance claims for a given imaging modality. The term "actor" denotes any entity (device, software, or person) whose performance must meet certain specifications for the claim to be met. The objective of this paper is to present the statistical issues in testing actors' conformance with the specifications. In particular, we present the general rationale and interpretation of the claims, the minimum requirements for testing whether an actor achieves the performance requirements, the study designs used for testing conformity, and the statistical analysis plan. We use three examples to illustrate the process: apparent diffusion coefficient in solid tumors measured by MRI, change in Perc 15 as a biomarker for the progression of emphysema, and percent change in solid tumor volume by computed tomography as a biomarker for lung cancer progression.

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.

Role of the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance in optimizing CT for the evaluation of lung cancer screen-detected nodules.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) is a multidisciplinary consortium sponsored by the RSNA to define processes that enable the implementation and advancement of quantitative imaging methods described in a QIBA profile document that outlines the process to reliably and accurately measure imaging features. A QIBA profile includes factors such as technical (product-specific) standards, user activities, and relationship to a clinically meaningful metric, such as with nodule measurement in the course of CT screening for lung cancer. In this report, the authors describe how the QIBA approach is being applied to the measurement of small pulmonary nodules such as those found during low-dose CT-based lung cancer screening. All sources of variance with imaging measurement were defined for this process. Through a process of experimentation, literature review, and assembly of expert opinion, the strongest evidence was used to define how to best implement each step in the imaging acquisition and evaluation process. This systematic approach to implementing a quantitative imaging biomarker with standardized specifications for image acquisition and postprocessing for a specific quantitative measurement of a pulmonary nodule results in consistent performance characteristics of the measurement (eg, bias and variance). Implementation of the QIBA small nodule profile may allow more efficient and effective clinical management of the diagnostic workup of individuals found to have suspicious pulmonary nodules in the course of lung cancer screening evaluation.

The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions.

The development and implementation of quantitative imaging biomarkers has been hampered by the inconsistent and often incorrect use of terminology related to these markers. Sponsored by the Radiological Society of North America, an interdisciplinary group of radiologists, statisticians, physicists, and other researchers worked to develop a comprehensive terminology to serve as a foundation for quantitative imaging biomarker claims. Where possible, this working group adapted existing definitions derived from national or international standards bodies rather than invent new definitions for these terms. This terminology also serves as a foundation for the design of studies that evaluate the technical performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers and for studies of algorithms that generate the quantitative imaging biomarkers from clinical scans. This paper provides examples of research studies and quantitative imaging biomarker claims that use terminology consistent with these definitions as well as examples of the rampant confusion in this emerging field. We provide recommendations for appropriate use of quantitative imaging biomarker terminological concepts. It is hoped that this document will assist researchers and regulatory reviewers who examine quantitative imaging biomarkers and will also inform regulatory guidance. More consistent and correct use of terminology could advance regulatory science, improve clinical research, and provide better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons.

Quantitative biomarkers from medical images are becoming important tools for clinical diagnosis, staging, monitoring, treatment planning, and development of new therapies. While there is a rich history of the development of quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) techniques, little attention has been paid to the validation and comparison of the computer algorithms that implement the QIB measurements. In this paper we provide a framework for QIB algorithm comparisons. We first review and compare various study designs, including designs with the true value (e.g. phantoms, digital reference images, and zero-change studies), designs with a reference standard (e.g. studies testing equivalence with a reference standard), and designs without a reference standard (e.g. agreement studies and studies of algorithm precision). The statistical methods for comparing QIB algorithms are then presented for various study types using both aggregate and disaggregate approaches. We propose a series of steps for establishing the performance of a QIB algorithm, identify limitations in the current statistical literature, and suggest future directions for research.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Technological developments and greater rigor in the quantitative measurement of biological features in medical images have given rise to an increased interest in using quantitative imaging biomarkers to measure changes in these features. Critical to the performance of a quantitative imaging biomarker in preclinical or clinical settings are three primary metrology areas of interest: measurement linearity and bias, repeatability, and the ability to consistently reproduce equivalent results when conditions change, as would be expected in any clinical trial. Unfortunately, performance studies to date differ greatly in designs, analysis method, and metrics used to assess a quantitative imaging biomarker for clinical use. It is therefore difficult or not possible to integrate results from different studies or to use reported results to design studies. The Radiological Society of North America and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance with technical, radiological, and statistical experts developed a set of technical performance analysis methods, metrics, and study designs that provide terminology, metrics, and methods consistent with widely accepted metrological standards. This document provides a consistent framework for the conduct and evaluation of quantitative imaging biomarker performance studies so that results from multiple studies can be compared, contrasted, or combined.

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.