Weijie Chen1, Nicholas A Petrick, Berkman Sahiner. 1. Division of Imaging and Applied Mathematics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA. weijie.chen@fda.hhs.gov
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional multireader multicase receiver operating characteristic (MRMC ROC) methodologies use hypothesis testing to test differences in diagnostic accuracies among several imaging modalities. The general MRMC-ROC analysis framework is designed to show that one modality is statistically different among a set of competing modalities (ie, the superiority setting). In practice, one may wish to show that the diagnostic accuracy of a modality is noninferior or equivalent, in a statistical sense, to that of another modality instead of showing its superiority (a higher bar). The purpose of this article is to investigate the appropriate adjustments to the conventional MRMC ROC hypothesis testing methodology for the design and analysis of noninferiority and equivalence hypothesis tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present three methodological adjustments to the updated and unified Obuchowski-Rockette (OR)/Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz (DBM) MRMC ROC method for use in statistical noninferiority/equivalence testing: 1) the appropriate statement of the null and alternative hypotheses; 2) a method for analyzing the experimental data; and 3) a method for sizing MRMC noninferiority/equivalence studies. We provide a clinical example to further illustrate the analysis of and sizing/power calculation for noninferiority MRMC ROC studies and give some insights on the interplay of effect size, noninferiority margin parameter, and sample sizes. RESULTS: We provide detailed analysis and sizing computation procedures for a noninferiority MRMC ROC study using our method adjusted from the updated and unified OR/DBM MRMC method. Likewise, we show that an equivalence hypothesis test is identical to performing two simultaneous noninferiority tests (ie, either modality is noninferior to the other). CONCLUSION: Conventional MRMC ROC methodology developed for superiority studies can and should be adjusted appropriately for the design and analysis of a noninferiority/equivalence hypothesis testing. In addition, the confidence interval of the difference in diagnostic accuracies is important information and should generally accompany the statistical analysis and any conclusions drawn from the hypothesis testing. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional multireader multicase receiver operating characteristic (MRMC ROC) methodologies use hypothesis testing to test differences in diagnostic accuracies among several imaging modalities. The general MRMC-ROC analysis framework is designed to show that one modality is statistically different among a set of competing modalities (ie, the superiority setting). In practice, one may wish to show that the diagnostic accuracy of a modality is noninferior or equivalent, in a statistical sense, to that of another modality instead of showing its superiority (a higher bar). The purpose of this article is to investigate the appropriate adjustments to the conventional MRMC ROC hypothesis testing methodology for the design and analysis of noninferiority and equivalence hypothesis tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present three methodological adjustments to the updated and unified Obuchowski-Rockette (OR)/Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz (DBM) MRMC ROC method for use in statistical noninferiority/equivalence testing: 1) the appropriate statement of the null and alternative hypotheses; 2) a method for analyzing the experimental data; and 3) a method for sizing MRMC noninferiority/equivalence studies. We provide a clinical example to further illustrate the analysis of and sizing/power calculation for noninferiority MRMC ROC studies and give some insights on the interplay of effect size, noninferiority margin parameter, and sample sizes. RESULTS: We provide detailed analysis and sizing computation procedures for a noninferiority MRMC ROC study using our method adjusted from the updated and unified OR/DBM MRMC method. Likewise, we show that an equivalence hypothesis test is identical to performing two simultaneous noninferiority tests (ie, either modality is noninferior to the other). CONCLUSION: Conventional MRMC ROC methodology developed for superiority studies can and should be adjusted appropriately for the design and analysis of a noninferiority/equivalence hypothesis testing. In addition, the confidence interval of the difference in diagnostic accuracies is important information and should generally accompany the statistical analysis and any conclusions drawn from the hypothesis testing. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Tao Tan; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ji Hoon Park; Jong-June Jeon; Sung Soo Lee; Amar C Dhanantwari; Ji Ye Sim; Hae Young Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Alicia Toledano; Jean R Paquelet; Elisabetta Bezzon; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Lifeng Yu; Zhoubo Li; Armando Manduca; Daniel J Blezek; David M Hough; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Gregory C Brickner; Joseph C Cernigliaro; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; David S Lake; Maria Shiung; David Lewis; Shuai Leng; Kurt E Augustine; Rickey E Carter; David R Holmes; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ye Li; Junyu Chen; Justin L Brown; S Ted Treves; Xinhua Cao; Frederic H Fahey; George Sgouros; Wesley E Bolch; Eric C Frey Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-01-28
Authors: Antonio J Salazar; Javier A Romero; Oscar A Bernal; Angela P Moreno; Sofía C Velasco; Xavier A Díaz Journal: Int J Telemed Appl Date: 2016-09-29