Uncertainties in RECIST as a measure of volume for lung nodules and liver tumors

Identification of Tumor-Specific MRI Biomarkers Using Machine Learning (ML)

The identification of reliable and non-invasive oncology biomarkers remains a main priority in healthcare. There are only a few biomarkers that have been approved as diagnostic for cancer. The most frequently used cancer biomarkers are derived from either biological materials or imaging data. Most cancer biomarkers suffer from a lack of high specificity. However, the latest advancements in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled the identification of highly predictive, disease-specific biomarkers. Such biomarkers can be used to diagnose cancer patients, to predict cancer prognosis, or even to predict treatment efficacy. Herein, we provide a summary of the current status of developing and applying Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers in cancer care. We focus on all aspects of MRI biomarkers, starting from MRI data collection, preprocessing and machine learning methods, and ending with summarizing the types of existing biomarkers and their clinical applications in different cancer types.

Validated imaging biomarkers as decision-making tools in clinical trials and routine practice: current status and recommendations from the EIBALL* subcommittee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR)

Observer-driven pattern recognition is the standard for interpretation of medical images. To achieve global parity in interpretation, semi-quantitative scoring systems have been developed based on observer assessments; these are widely used in scoring coronary artery disease, the arthritides and neurological conditions and for indicating the likelihood of malignancy. However, in an era of machine learning and artificial intelligence, it is increasingly desirable that we extract quantitative biomarkers from medical images that inform on disease detection, characterisation, monitoring and assessment of response to treatment. Quantitation has the potential to provide objective decision-support tools in the management pathway of patients. Despite this, the quantitative potential of imaging remains under-exploited because of variability of the measurement, lack of harmonised systems for data acquisition and analysis, and crucially, a paucity of evidence on how such quantitation potentially affects clinical decision-making and patient outcome. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of semi-quantitative and quantitative biomarkers in clinical settings at various stages of the disease pathway including diagnosis, staging and prognosis, as well as predicting and detecting treatment response. It critically appraises current practice and sets out recommendations for using imaging objectively to drive patient management decisions.

Algorithm Variability in the Estimation of Lung Nodule Volume From Phantom CT Scans: Results of the QIBA 3A Public Challenge

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Quantifying changes in lung tumor volume is important for diagnosis, therapy planning, and evaluation of response to therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of multiple algorithms on a reference data set. The study was organized by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was organized as a public challenge. Computed tomography scans of synthetic lung tumors in an anthropomorphic phantom were acquired by the Food and Drug Administration. Tumors varied in size, shape, and radiodensity. Participants applied their own semi-automated volume estimation algorithms that either did not allow or allowed post-segmentation correction (type 1 or 2, respectively). Statistical analysis of accuracy (percent bias) and precision (repeatability and reproducibility) was conducted across algorithms, as well as across nodule characteristics, slice thickness, and algorithm type.

RESULTS

Eighty-four percent of volume measurements of QIBA-compliant tumors were within 15% of the true volume, ranging from 66% to 93% across algorithms, compared to 61% of volume measurements for all tumors (ranging from 37% to 84%). Algorithm type did not affect bias substantially; however, it was an important factor in measurement precision. Algorithm precision was notably better as tumor size increased, worse for irregularly shaped tumors, and on the average better for type 1 algorithms. Over all nodules meeting the QIBA Profile, precision, as measured by the repeatability coefficient, was 9.0% compared to 18.4% overall.

CONCLUSION

The results achieved in this study, using a heterogeneous set of measurement algorithms, support QIBA quantitative performance claims in terms of volume measurement repeatability for nodules meeting the QIBA Profile criteria.