RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: New ways to understand biology as well as increasing interest in personalized treatments requires new capabilities for the assessment of therapy response. The lack of consensus methods and qualification evidence needed for large-scale multicenter trials, and in turn the standardization that allows them, are widely acknowledged to be the limiting factor in the deployment of qualified imaging biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance is organized to establish a methodology whereby multiple stakeholders collaborate. It has charged the Volumetric Computed Tomography (CT) Technical Subcommittee with investigating the technical feasibility and clinical value of quantifying changes over time in either volume or other parameters as biomarkers. The group selected solid tumors of the chest in subjects with lung cancer as its first case in point. Success is defined as sufficiently rigorous improvements in CT-based outcome measures to allow individual patients in clinical settings to switch treatments sooner if they are no longer responding to their current regimens, and reduce the costs of evaluating investigational new drugs to treat lung cancer. RESULTS: The team has completed a systems engineering analysis, has begun a roadmap of experimental groundwork, documented profile claims and protocols, and documented a process for imaging biomarker qualification as a general paradigm for qualifying other imaging biomarkers as well. CONCLUSION: This report addresses a procedural template for the qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers. This mechanism is cost-effective for stakeholders while simultaneously advancing the public health by promoting the use of measures that prove effective.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: New ways to understand biology as well as increasing interest in personalized treatments requires new capabilities for the assessment of therapy response. The lack of consensus methods and qualification evidence needed for large-scale multicenter trials, and in turn the standardization that allows them, are widely acknowledged to be the limiting factor in the deployment of qualified imaging biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance is organized to establish a methodology whereby multiple stakeholders collaborate. It has charged the Volumetric Computed Tomography (CT) Technical Subcommittee with investigating the technical feasibility and clinical value of quantifying changes over time in either volume or other parameters as biomarkers. The group selected solid tumors of the chest in subjects with lung cancer as its first case in point. Success is defined as sufficiently rigorous improvements in CT-based outcome measures to allow individual patients in clinical settings to switch treatments sooner if they are no longer responding to their current regimens, and reduce the costs of evaluating investigational new drugs to treat lung cancer. RESULTS: The team has completed a systems engineering analysis, has begun a roadmap of experimental groundwork, documented profile claims and protocols, and documented a process for imaging biomarker qualification as a general paradigm for qualifying other imaging biomarkers as well. CONCLUSION: This report addresses a procedural template for the qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers. This mechanism is cost-effective for stakeholders while simultaneously advancing the public health by promoting the use of measures that prove effective.
Authors: Laurence P Clarke; Barbara S Croft; Robert Nordstrom; Huiming Zhang; Gary Kelloff; J Tatum Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; David Paik; Matt Ouellette; Jovanna Danagoulian; Gary Wernsing; Baris E Suzek Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: P David Mozley; Claus Bendtsen; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Matthias Thorn; Yuanxin Rong; Luduan Zhang; Andrea Perrone; René Korn; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rathan M Subramaniam; Leon Lenchik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Jongphil Kim; Hua Wang; Ying Liu; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Rene Korn; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Satrajit Basu; Steven Eschrich; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.056