Michela Gabelloni1, Lorenzo Faggioni2, Rita Borgheresi1, Giuliana Restante1, Jorge Shortrede1, Lorenzo Tumminello1, Camilla Scapicchio1, Francesca Coppola3,4, Dania Cioni1, Ignacio Gómez-Rico5, Luis Martí-Bonmatí5,6, Emanuele Neri1,4. 1. Academic Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, via Roma, 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 2. Academic Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, via Roma, 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. lfaggioni@sirm.org. 3. Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, 40138, Bologna, Italy. 4. Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, SIRM Foundation, via della Signora, 2, 20122, Milan, Italy. 5. Biomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) at La Fe Health Research Institute, 46026, Valencia, Spain. 6. Medical Imaging Department, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, 46026, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The systematic collection of medical images combined with imaging biomarkers and patient non-imaging data is the core concept of imaging biobanks, a key element for fuelling the development of modern precision medicine. Our purpose is to review the existing image repositories fulfilling the criteria for imaging biobanks. METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English from January 2010 to July 2021 using a combination of the terms: "imaging" AND "biobanks" and "imaging" AND "repository". Moreover, the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) database ( https://cordis.europa.eu/projects ) was searched using the terms: "imaging" AND "biobanks", also including collections, projects, project deliverables, project publications and programmes. RESULTS: Of 9272 articles retrieved, only 54 related to biobanks containing imaging data were finally selected, of which 33 were disease-oriented (61.1%) and 21 population-based (38.9%). Most imaging biobanks were European (26/54, 48.1%), followed by American biobanks (20/54, 37.0%). Among disease-oriented biobanks, the majority were focused on neurodegenerative (9/33, 27.3%) and oncological diseases (9/33, 27.3%). The number of patients enrolled ranged from 240 to 3,370,929, and the imaging modality most frequently involved was MRI (40/54, 74.1%), followed by CT (20/54, 37.0%), PET (13/54, 24.1%), and ultrasound (12/54, 22.2%). Most biobanks (38/54, 70.4%) were accessible under request. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging biobanks can serve as a platform for collecting, sharing and analysing medical images integrated with imaging biomarkers, biological and clinical data. A relatively small proportion of current biobanks also contain images and can thus be classified as imaging biobanks. KEY POINTS: • Imaging biobanks are a powerful tool for large-scale collection and processing of medical images integrated with imaging biomarkers and patient non-imaging data. • Most imaging biobanks retrieved were European, disease-oriented and accessible under user request. • While many biobanks have been developed so far, only a relatively small proportion of them are imaging biobanks.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The systematic collection of medical images combined with imaging biomarkers and patient non-imaging data is the core concept of imaging biobanks, a key element for fuelling the development of modern precision medicine. Our purpose is to review the existing image repositories fulfilling the criteria for imaging biobanks. METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English from January 2010 to July 2021 using a combination of the terms: "imaging" AND "biobanks" and "imaging" AND "repository". Moreover, the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) database ( https://cordis.europa.eu/projects ) was searched using the terms: "imaging" AND "biobanks", also including collections, projects, project deliverables, project publications and programmes. RESULTS: Of 9272 articles retrieved, only 54 related to biobanks containing imaging data were finally selected, of which 33 were disease-oriented (61.1%) and 21 population-based (38.9%). Most imaging biobanks were European (26/54, 48.1%), followed by American biobanks (20/54, 37.0%). Among disease-oriented biobanks, the majority were focused on neurodegenerative (9/33, 27.3%) and oncological diseases (9/33, 27.3%). The number of patients enrolled ranged from 240 to 3,370,929, and the imaging modality most frequently involved was MRI (40/54, 74.1%), followed by CT (20/54, 37.0%), PET (13/54, 24.1%), and ultrasound (12/54, 22.2%). Most biobanks (38/54, 70.4%) were accessible under request. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging biobanks can serve as a platform for collecting, sharing and analysing medical images integrated with imaging biomarkers, biological and clinical data. A relatively small proportion of current biobanks also contain images and can thus be classified as imaging biobanks. KEY POINTS: • Imaging biobanks are a powerful tool for large-scale collection and processing of medical images integrated with imaging biomarkers and patient non-imaging data. • Most imaging biobanks retrieved were European, disease-oriented and accessible under user request. • While many biobanks have been developed so far, only a relatively small proportion of them are imaging biobanks.
Authors: Diane E Bild; David A Bluemke; Gregory L Burke; Robert Detrano; Ana V Diez Roux; Aaron R Folsom; Philip Greenland; David R Jacob; Richard Kronmal; Kiang Liu; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Daniel O'Leary; Mohammed F Saad; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; Russell P Tracy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Paul M Matthews; Naomi E Allen; Thomas J Littlejohns; Jo Holliday; Lorna M Gibson; Steve Garratt; Niels Oesingmann; Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Jimmy D Bell; Chris Boultwood; Rory Collins; Megan C Conroy; Nicola Crabtree; Nicola Doherty; Alejandro F Frangi; Nicholas C Harvey; Paul Leeson; Karla L Miller; Stefan Neubauer; Steffen E Petersen; Jonathan Sellors; Simon Sheard; Stephen M Smith; Cathie L M Sudlow Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Luigi Coppola; Alessandra Cianflone; Anna Maria Grimaldi; Mariarosaria Incoronato; Paolo Bevilacqua; Francesco Messina; Simona Baselice; Andrea Soricelli; Peppino Mirabelli; Marco Salvatore Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: M Arfan Ikram; Aad van der Lugt; Wiro J Niessen; Peter J Koudstaal; Gabriel P Krestin; Albert Hofman; Daniel Bos; Meike W Vernooij Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 8.082