Three-dimensional US for Quantification of Volumetric Blood Flow: Multisite Multisystem Results from within the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance.

Background Quantitative blood flow (QBF) measurements that use pulsed-wave US rely on difficult-to-meet conditions. Imaging biomarkers need to be quantitative and user and machine independent. Surrogate markers (eg, resistive index) fail to quantify actual volumetric flow. Standardization is possible, but relies on collaboration between users, manufacturers, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Purpose To evaluate a Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance-supported, user- and machine-independent US method for quantitatively measuring QBF. Materials and Methods In this prospective study (March 2017 to March 2019), three different clinical US scanners were used to benchmark QBF in a calibrated flow phantom at three different laboratories each. Testing conditions involved changes in flow rate (1-12 mL/sec), imaging depth (2.5-7 cm), color flow gain (0%-100%), and flow past a stenosis. Each condition was performed under constant and pulsatile flow at 60 beats per minute, thus yielding eight distinct testing conditions. QBF was computed from three-dimensional color flow velocity, power, and scan geometry by using Gauss theorem. Statistical analysis was performed between systems and between laboratories. Systems and laboratories were anonymized when reporting results. Results For systems 1, 2, and 3, flow rate for constant and pulsatile flow was measured, respectively, with biases of 3.5% and 24.9%, 3.0% and 2.1%, and -22.1% and -10.9%. Coefficients of variation were 6.9% and 7.7%, 3.3% and 8.2%, and 9.6% and 17.3%, respectively. For changes in imaging depth, biases were 3.7% and 27.2%, -2.0% and -0.9%, and -22.8% and -5.9%, respectively. Respective coefficients of variation were 10.0% and 9.2%, 4.6% and 6.9%, and 10.1% and 11.6%. For changes in color flow gain, biases after filling the lumen with color pixels were 6.3% and 18.5%, 8.5% and 9.0%, and 16.6% and 6.2%, respectively. Respective coefficients of variation were 10.8% and 4.3%, 7.3% and 6.7%, and 6.7% and 5.3%. Poststenotic flow biases were 1.8% and 31.2%, 5.7% and -3.1%, and -18.3% and -18.2%, respectively. Conclusion Interlaboratory bias and variation of US-derived quantitative blood flow indicated its potential to become a clinical biomarker for the blood supply to end organs. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Forsberg in this issue.

Preclinical multimodality phantom design for quality assurance of tumor size measurement.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of changes in tumor size from images acquired by ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a common measure of cancer chemotherapy efficacy. Tumor size measurement based on either the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria or the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the only imaging biomarker for anti-cancer drug testing presently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The aim of this paper was to design and test a quality assurance phantom with the capability of monitoring tumor size changes with multiple preclinical imaging scanners (US, CT and MRI) in order to facilitate preclinical anti-cancer drug testing. METHODS: Three phantoms (Gammex/UTHSCSA Mark 1, Gammex/UTHSCSA Mark 2 and UTHSCSA multimodality tumor measurement phantom) containing tumor-simulating test objects were designed and constructed. All three phantoms were scanned in US, CT and MRI devices. The size of test objects in the phantoms was measured from the US, CT and MRI images. RECIST, WHO and volume analyses were performed. RESULTS: The smaller phantom size, simplified design and better test object CT contrast of the UTHSCSA multimodality tumor measurement phantom allowed scanning of the phantom in preclinical US, CT and MRI scanners compared with only limited preclinical scanning capability of Mark 1 and Mark 2 phantoms. For all imaging modalities, RECIST and WHO errors were reduced for UTHSCSA multimodality tumor measurement phantom (≤1.69 ± 0.33%) compared with both Mark 1 (≤ -7.56 ± 6.52%) and Mark 2 (≤ 5.66 ± 1.41%) phantoms. For the UTHSCSA multimodality tumor measurement phantom, measured tumor volumes were highly correlated with NIST traceable design volumes for US (R2 = 1.000, p < 0.0001), CT (R2 = 0.9999, p < 0.0001) and MRI (R2 = 0.9998, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The UTHSCSA multimodality tumor measurement phantom described in this study can potentially be a useful quality assurance tool for verifying radiologic assessment of tumor size change during preclinical anti-cancer therapy testing with multiple imaging modalities.