9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validated imaging biomarkers as decision-making tools in clinical trials and routine practice: current status and recommendations from the EIBALL* subcommittee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR)

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Observer-driven pattern recognition is the standard for interpretation of medical images. To achieve global parity in interpretation, semi-quantitative scoring systems have been developed based on observer assessments; these are widely used in scoring coronary artery disease, the arthritides and neurological conditions and for indicating the likelihood of malignancy. However, in an era of machine learning and artificial intelligence, it is increasingly desirable that we extract quantitative biomarkers from medical images that inform on disease detection, characterisation, monitoring and assessment of response to treatment. Quantitation has the potential to provide objective decision-support tools in the management pathway of patients. Despite this, the quantitative potential of imaging remains under-exploited because of variability of the measurement, lack of harmonised systems for data acquisition and analysis, and crucially, a paucity of evidence on how such quantitation potentially affects clinical decision-making and patient outcome. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of semi-quantitative and quantitative biomarkers in clinical settings at various stages of the disease pathway including diagnosis, staging and prognosis, as well as predicting and detecting treatment response. It critically appraises current practice and sets out recommendations for using imaging objectively to drive patient management decisions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references143

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

          The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0. PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors' experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment. Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limitations in response assessments. For example, despite effective treatment, changes in tumor size can be minimal in tumors such as lymphomas, sarcoma, hepatomas, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. CT tumor density, contrast enhancement, or MRI characteristics appear more informative than size but are not yet routinely applied. RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowly than WHO criteria. RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes. Variability appears greater in assessing progression than in assessing response. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to (18)F-FDG PET response assessment have been applied and require a consistent PET methodology to allow quantitative assessments. Statistically significant changes in tumor standardized uptake value (SUV) occur in careful test-retest studies of high-SUV tumors, with a change of 20% in SUV of a region 1 cm or larger in diameter; however, medically relevant beneficial changes are often associated with a 30% or greater decline. The more extensive the therapy, the greater the decline in SUV with most effective treatments. Important components of the proposed PERCIST criteria include assessing normal reference tissue values in a 3-cm-diameter region of interest in the liver, using a consistent PET protocol, using a fixed small region of interest about 1 cm(3) in volume (1.2-cm diameter) in the most active region of metabolically active tumors to minimize statistical variability, assessing tumor size, treating SUV lean measurements in the 1 (up to 5 optional) most metabolically active tumor focus as a continuous variable, requiring a 30% decline in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity or are technically unsuitable. Criteria to define progression of tumor-absent new lesions are uncertain but are proposed. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in assessing the activity of newer cancer therapies that stabilize disease, whereas (18)F-FDG PET appears particularly valuable in such cases. The proposed PERCIST 1.0 criteria should serve as a starting point for use in clinical trials and in structured quantitative clinical reporting. Undoubtedly, subsequent revisions and enhancements will be required as validation studies are undertaken in varying diseases and treatments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and Validation of a Radiomics Nomogram for Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer.

            To develop and validate a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node (LN) metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0

              The aim of this guideline is to provide a minimum standard for the acquisition and interpretation of PET and PET/CT scans with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). This guideline will therefore address general information about [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) and is provided to help the physician and physicist to assist to carrying out, interpret, and document quantitative FDG PET/CT examinations, but will concentrate on the optimisation of diagnostic quality and quantitative information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44-8661-3289 , nandita.desouza@icr.ac.uk
                Journal
                Insights Imaging
                Insights Imaging
                Insights into Imaging
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1869-4101
                29 August 2019
                29 August 2019
                December 2019
                : 10
                : 87
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0417 0461, GRID grid.424926.f, Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre, , The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden Hospital, ; Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0626 3303, GRID grid.410566.0, Ghent University Hospital, ; Ghent, Belgium
                [3 ]QUIBIM SL / La Fe Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain
                [4 ]GRID grid.5963.9, Department of Radiology, , University of Freiburg, ; Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0435 165X, GRID grid.16872.3a, VU University Medical Center, ; Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [6 ]GRID grid.414093.b, Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou, ; Paris, France
                [7 ]ISNI 0000000121885934, GRID grid.5335.0, University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, UK
                [8 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, UCL Institute of Neurology, ; London, UK
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2190 4373, GRID grid.7700.0, Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Translational Lung Research Center (TLRC), , German Center for Lung Research (DZL), University of Heidelberg, ; Im Neuenheimer Feld 156, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
                [10 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2167 3675, GRID grid.14003.36, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, ; Madison, WI USA
                [11 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0444 9382, GRID grid.10417.33, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, , Radboud University Medical Center, ; Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [12 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9259 8492, GRID grid.22937.3d, Medical University Vienna, ; Vienna, Austria
                [13 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 3729, GRID grid.5395.a, Department of Translational Research, , University of Pisa, ; Pisa, Italy
                [14 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Division of Cancer Sciences, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                [15 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0642 1084, GRID grid.411920.f, Hacettepe University Hospitals, ; Ankara, Turkey
                [16 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2162 9922, GRID grid.5640.7, Linköpings Universitet, ; Linköping, Sweden
                [17 ]ISNI 000000040459992X, GRID grid.5645.2, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (Ne-515), , Erasmus MC, ; PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [18 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, GRID grid.4305.2, Edinburgh Imaging, , Queen’s Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh Bioquarter, ; 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK
                [19 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0642, GRID grid.6612.3, University Hospital Basel, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, , University of Basel, ; Petersgraben 4, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland
                [20 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9800 0703, GRID grid.458508.4, European Society of Radiology, ; Am Gestade 1, 1010 Vienna, Austria
                Article
                764
                10.1186/s13244-019-0764-0
                6715762
                31468205
                06fce86f-cd80-4111-adbb-8a88f2dae000
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 3 May 2019
                : 28 June 2019
                Categories
                Statement
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Radiology & Imaging
                imaging biomarkers,clinical decision making,quantitation,standardisation
                Radiology & Imaging
                imaging biomarkers, clinical decision making, quantitation, standardisation

                Comments

                Comment on this article