Literature DB >> 29191687

Interpreting Change in Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Nancy A Obuchowski1.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are becoming increasingly adopted into clinical practice to monitor changes in patients' conditions. The repeatability coefficient (RC) is the clinical cut-point used to discern between changes in a biomarker's measurements due to measurement error and changes that exceed measurement error, thus indicating real change in the patient. Imaging biomarkers have characteristics that make them difficult for estimating the repeatability coefficient, including nonconstant error, non-Gaussian distributions, and measurement error that must be estimated from small studies.
METHODS: We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to investigate how well three statistical methods for estimating the repeatability coefficient perform under five settings common for QIBs.
RESULTS: When the measurement error is constant and replicates are normally distributed, all of the statistical methods perform well. When the measurement error is proportional to the true value, approaches that use the log transformation or coefficient of variation perform similarly. For other common settings, none of the methods for estimating the repeatability coefficient perform adequately.
CONCLUSION: Many of the common approaches to estimating the repeatability coefficient perform well for only limited scenarios. The optimal approach depends strongly on the pattern of the within-subject variability; thus, a precision profile is critical in evaluating the technical performance of QIBs. Asymmetric bounds for detecting regression vs progression can be implemented and should be used when clinically appropriate.
Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Quantitative imaging biomarker; measurement error; repeatability; repeatability coefficient

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29191687      PMCID: PMC5834376          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.09.023

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Authors:  Daniel C Sullivan; Nancy A Obuchowski; Larry G Kessler; David L Raunig; Constantine Gatsonis; Erich P Huang; Marina Kondratovich; Lisa M McShane; Anthony P Reeves; Daniel P Barboriak; Alexander R Guimaraes; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective Assessment in 2 Multicenter Trials.

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber; Constantine A Gatsonis; P David Mozley; Lucy G Hanna; Anthony F Shields; Denise R Aberle; Ramaswamy Govindan; Drew A Torigian; Joel S Karp; Jian Q Michael Yu; Rathan M Subramaniam; Robert A Halvorsen; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: Effect of sample size and bias on confidence interval coverage.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Jennifer Bullen
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  Extracranial Soft-Tissue Tumors: Repeatability of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Estimates from Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging.

Authors:  Jessica M Winfield; Nina Tunariu; Mihaela Rata; Keiko Miyazaki; Neil P Jerome; Michael Germuska; Matthew D Blackledge; David J Collins; Johann S de Bono; Timothy A Yap; Nandita M deSouza; Simon J Doran; Dow-Mu Koh; Martin O Leach; Christina Messiou; Matthew R Orton
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Applications of the repeatability of quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical analysis of repeat data sets.

Authors:  Huiman X Barnhart; Daniel P Barboriak
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 8.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Authors:  David L Raunig; Lisa M McShane; Gene Pennello; Constantine Gatsonis; Paul L Carson; James T Voyvodic; Richard L Wahl; Brenda F Kurland; Adam J Schwarz; Mithat Gönen; Gudrun Zahlmann; Marina V Kondratovich; Kevin O'Donnell; Nicholas Petrick; Patricia E Cole; Brian Garra; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 9.  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

10.  Statistical issues in the comparison of quantitative imaging biomarker algorithms using pulmonary nodule volume as an example.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Huiman X Barnhart; Andrew J Buckler; Gene Pennello; Xiao-Feng Wang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Hyun J Grace Kim; Anthony P Reeves
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Selection of Fitting Model and Arterial Input Function for Repeatability in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Prostate MRI.

Authors:  Sharon Peled; Mark Vangel; Ron Kikinis; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy; Andrey Fedorov
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Repeatability of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT-Derived Total Molecular Tumor Volume.

Authors:  Robert Seifert; Patrick Sandach; David Kersting; Wolfgang P Fendler; Boris Hadaschik; Ken Herrmann; John J Sunderland; Janet H Pollard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 11.082

3.  Comparison of CT Lung Density Measurements between Standard Full-Dose and Reduced-Dose Protocols.

Authors:  Charles R Hatt; Andrea S Oh; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; David A Lynch; Stephen M Humphries
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2021-04-22

4.  Projection-based stereolithography for direct 3D printing of heterogeneous ultrasound phantoms.

Authors:  Samantha J Paulsen; Trevor M Mitcham; Charlene S Pan; James Long; Bagrat Grigoryan; Daniel W Sazer; Collin J Harlan; Kevin D Janson; Mark D Pagel; Jordan S Miller; Richard R Bouchard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Daily Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) In Prostate Cancer Patients During MR-Guided Radiotherapy-A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Ernst S Kooreman; Petra J van Houdt; Rick Keesman; Vivian W J van Pelt; Marlies E Nowee; Floris Pos; Karolina Sikorska; Andreas Wetscherek; Arndt-Christian Müller; Daniela Thorwarth; Alison C Tree; Uulke A van der Heide
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 6.244

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.