Literature DB >> 28456570

Beyond Correlations, Sensitivities, and Specificities: A Roadmap for Demonstrating Utility of Advanced Imaging in Oncology Treatment and Clinical Trial Design.

Erich P Huang1, Frank I Lin2, Lalitha K Shankar2.   

Abstract

Despite the widespread belief that advanced imaging should be very helpful in guiding oncology treatment decision and improving efficiency and success rates in treatment clinical trials, its acceptance has been slow. Part of this is likely attributable to gaps in study design and statistical methodology for these imaging studies. Also, results supporting the performance of the imaging in these roles have largely been insufficient to justify their use within the design of a clinical trial or in treatment decision making. Statistically significant correlations between the imaging results and clinical outcomes are often incorrectly taken as evidence of adequate performance. Assessments of whether the imaging can outperform standard techniques or meaningfully supplement them are also frequently neglected. This paper provides guidance on study designs and statistical analyses for evaluating the performance of advanced imaging in the various roles in treatment decision guidance and clinical trial conduct. Relevant methodology from the imaging literature is reviewed; gaps in the literature are addressed using related concepts from the more extensive genomic and in vitro biomarker literature. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trial; cancer imaging; statistical analysis; study design

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28456570      PMCID: PMC5547568          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  70 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 2.  Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval.

Authors:  John Goffin; Stefan Baral; Dongsheng Tu; Dora Nomikos; Lesley Seymour
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods.

Authors:  Annette M Molinaro; Richard Simon; Ruth M Pfeiffer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2005-05-19       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  When is the right time to conduct a clinical trial of a diagnostic imaging technology?

Authors:  Bruce J Hillman; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  What should physicians look for in evaluating prognostic gene-expression signatures?

Authors:  Jyothi Subramanian; Richard Simon
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Metastasis stage, adjuvant treatment, and residual tumor are prognostic factors for medulloblastoma in children: conclusions from the Children's Cancer Group 921 randomized phase III study.

Authors:  P M Zeltzer; J M Boyett; J L Finlay; A L Albright; L B Rorke; J M Milstein; J C Allen; K R Stevens; P Stanley; H Li; J H Wisoff; J R Geyer; P McGuire-Cullen; J A Stehbens; S B Shurin; R J Packer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Evaluation of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography with histopathologic correlation in the initial staging of head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Anthony Hannah; Andrew M Scott; Henri Tochon-Danguy; J Gordon Chan; Tim Akhurst; Salvatore Berlangieri; David Price; Gerard J Smith; Tony Schelleman; W J McKay; Andrew Sizeland
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Quantitative imaging of estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer with PET and 18F-fluoroestradiol.

Authors:  Lanell M Peterson; David A Mankoff; Thomas Lawton; Kevin Yagle; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Allen Gown; Jeanne M Link; Timothy Tewson; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 10.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.