17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology

      review-article

      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

          Oncological diseases account for a significant portion of the burden on public healthcare systems with associated costs driven primarily by complex and long-lasting therapies. Through the visualization of patient-specific morphology and functional-molecular pathways, cancerous tissue can be detected and characterized non-invasively, so as to provide referring oncologists with essential information to support therapy management decisions. Following the onset of stand-alone anatomical and functional imaging, we witness a push towards integrating molecular image information through various methods, including anato-metabolic imaging (e.g., PET/CT), advanced MRI, optical or ultrasound imaging.

          This perspective paper highlights a number of key technological and methodological advances in imaging instrumentation related to anatomical, functional, molecular medicine and hybrid imaging, that is understood as the hardware-based combination of complementary anatomical and molecular imaging. These include novel detector technologies for ionizing radiation used in CT and nuclear medicine imaging, and novel system developments in MRI and optical as well as opto-acoustic imaging. We will also highlight new data processing methods for improved non-invasive tissue characterization. Following a general introduction to the role of imaging in oncology patient management we introduce imaging methods with well-defined clinical applications and potential for clinical translation. For each modality, we report first on the status quo and, then point to perceived technological and methodological advances in a subsequent status go section. Considering the breadth and dynamics of these developments, this perspective ends with a critical reflection on where the authors, with the majority of them being imaging experts with a background in physics and engineering, believe imaging methods will be in a few years from now.

          Overall, methodological and technological medical imaging advances are geared towards increased image contrast, the derivation of reproducible quantitative parameters, an increase in volume sensitivity and a reduction in overall examination time. To ensure full translation to the clinic, this progress in technologies and instrumentation is complemented by advances in relevant acquisition and image-processing protocols and improved data analysis. To this end, we should accept diagnostic images as “data”, and – through the wider adoption of advanced analysis, including machine learning approaches and a “big data” concept – move to the next stage of non-invasive tumour phenotyping. The scans we will be reading in 10 years from now will likely be composed of highly diverse multi-dimensional data from multiple sources, which mandate the use of advanced and interactive visualization and analysis platforms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) for real-time data handling by cross-specialty clinical experts with a domain knowledge that will need to go beyond that of plain imaging.

          Related collections

          Most cited references188

          • 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

            SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI

            New theoretical and practical concepts are presented for considerably enhancing the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by means of arrays of multiple receiver coils. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) is based on the fact that receiver sensitivity generally has an encoding effect complementary to Fourier preparation by linear field gradients. Thus, by using multiple receiver coils in parallel scan time in Fourier imaging can be considerably reduced. The problem of image reconstruction from sensitivity encoded data is formulated in a general fashion and solved for arbitrary coil configurations and k-space sampling patterns. Special attention is given to the currently most practical case, namely, sampling a common Cartesian grid with reduced density. For this case the feasibility of the proposed methods was verified both in vitro and in vivo. Scan time was reduced to one-half using a two-coil array in brain imaging. With an array of five coils double-oblique heart images were obtained in one-third of conventional scan time. Magn Reson Med 42:952-962, 1999. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Fluorescence lifetime measurements and biological imaging.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at
                Journal
                Cancer Imaging
                Cancer Imaging
                Cancer Imaging
                BioMed Central (London )
                1740-5025
                1470-7330
                9 June 2020
                9 June 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 38
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.22937.3d, ISNI 0000 0000 9259 8492, QIMP Team, Centre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, , Medical University Vienna, ; Währinger Gürtel 18-20/4L, 1090 Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]GRID grid.36511.30, ISNI 0000 0004 0420 4262, College of Science, , University of Lincoln, ; Lincoln, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.439749.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0612 2754, Institute of Nuclear Medicine, , University College London Hospital, ; London, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.7497.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0492 0584, Division of X-ray imaging and CT, , German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), ; Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, DE Germany
                [5 ]GRID grid.1957.a, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 696X, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, University Clinic and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, , RWTH Aachen University, ; Pauwelsstrasse 20, 52074 Aachen, DE Germany
                [6 ]GRID grid.428590.2, ISNI 0000 0004 0496 8246, Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, ; Am Fallturm 1, 28359 Bremen, DE Germany
                [7 ]GRID grid.22937.3d, ISNI 0000 0000 9259 8492, Centre for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, , Medical University Vienna, ; Vienna, AT Austria
                [8 ]GRID grid.240145.6, ISNI 0000 0001 2291 4776, Department of Imaging Physics, , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, ; Houston, TX USA
                Article
                312
                10.1186/s40644-020-00312-3
                7285725
                32517801
                67d616a0-a371-4cbc-924b-a4abd5718eda
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 December 2019
                : 17 April 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                oncology imaging,instrumentation,ct,mri,optical,spect,us,sonography,hybrid imaging,machine learning

                Comments

                Comment on this article