Literature DB >> 29298603

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

Nancy A Obuchowski1, Jennifer Bullen1.   

Abstract

Introduction Quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are being increasingly used in medical practice and clinical trials. An essential first step in the adoption of a quantitative imaging biomarker is the characterization of its technical performance, i.e. precision and bias, through one or more performance studies. Then, given the technical performance, a confidence interval for a new patient's true biomarker value can be constructed. Estimating bias and precision can be problematic because rarely are both estimated in the same study, precision studies are usually quite small, and bias cannot be measured when there is no reference standard. Methods A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to assess factors affecting nominal coverage of confidence intervals for a new patient's quantitative imaging biomarker measurement and for change in the quantitative imaging biomarker over time. Factors considered include sample size for estimating bias and precision, effect of fixed and non-proportional bias, clustered data, and absence of a reference standard. Results Technical performance studies of a quantitative imaging biomarker should include at least 35 test-retest subjects to estimate precision and 65 cases to estimate bias. Confidence intervals for a new patient's quantitative imaging biomarker measurement constructed under the no-bias assumption provide nominal coverage as long as the fixed bias is <12%. For confidence intervals of the true change over time, linearity must hold and the slope of the regression of the measurements vs. true values should be between 0.95 and 1.05. The regression slope can be assessed adequately as long as fixed multiples of the measurand can be generated. Even small non-proportional bias greatly reduces confidence interval coverage. Multiple lesions in the same subject can be treated as independent when estimating precision. Conclusion Technical performance studies of quantitative imaging biomarkers require moderate sample sizes in order to provide robust estimates of bias and precision for constructing confidence intervals for new patients. Assumptions of linearity and non-proportional bias should be assessed thoroughly.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Quantitative imaging biomarker; confidence intervals; linearity; repeatability; reproducibility

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29298603     DOI: 10.1177/0962280217693662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  5 in total

1.  Interpreting Change in Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Linearity and Bias of Proton Density Fat Fraction as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker: A Multicenter, Multiplatform, Multivendor Phantom Study.

Authors:  Houchun H Hu; Takeshi Yokoo; Mustafa R Bashir; Claude B Sirlin; Diego Hernando; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Smith; Suraj D Serai; Michael S Middleton; Walter C Henderson; Gavin Hamilton; Jean Shaffer; Yunhong Shu; Jean A Tkach; Andrew T Trout; Nancy Obuchowski; Jean H Brittain; Edward F Jackson; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Impact of Alternate b-Value Combinations and Metrics on the Predictive Performance and Repeatability of Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Breast Cancer Treatment: Results from the ECOG-ACRIN A6698 Trial.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Jon Steingrimsson; David C Newitt; Jessica E Gibbs; Helga S Marques; Patrick J Bolan; Michael A Boss; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Nola M Hylton
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-03-04

Review 4.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE-MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Nancy A Obuchowski; Thomas L Chenevert; Sachin Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dariya Malyarenko; Wei Huang; Susan M Noworolski; Robert J Young; Mark S Shiroishi; Harrison Kim; Catherine Coolens; Hendrik Laue; Caroline Chung; Mark Rosen; Michael Boss; Edward F Jackson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 5.119

5.  Co-Clinical Imaging Resource Program (CIRP): Bridging the Translational Divide to Advance Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Kooresh I Shoghi; Cristian T Badea; Stephanie J Blocker; Thomas L Chenevert; Richard Laforest; Michael T Lewis; Gary D Luker; H Charles Manning; Daniel S Marcus; Yvonne M Mowery; Stephen Pickup; Ann Richmond; Brian D Ross; Anna E Vilgelm; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rong Zhou
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2020-09
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.