Automated tracking of quantitative assessments of tumor burden in clinical trials.

THERE ARE TWO KEY CHALLENGES HINDERING EFFECTIVE USE OF QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF IMAGING IN CANCER RESPONSE ASSESSMENT: 1) Radiologists usually describe the cancer lesions in imaging studies subjectively and sometimes ambiguously, and 2) it is difficult to repurpose imaging data, because lesion measurements are not recorded in a format that permits machine interpretation and interoperability. We have developed a freely available software platform on the basis of open standards, the electronic Physician Annotation Device (ePAD), to tackle these challenges in two ways. First, ePAD facilitates the radiologist in carrying out cancer lesion measurements as part of routine clinical trial image interpretation workflow. Second, ePAD records all image measurements and annotations in a data format that permits repurposing image data for analyses of alternative imaging biomarkers of treatment response. To determine the impact of ePAD on radiologist efficiency in quantitative assessment of imaging studies, a radiologist evaluated computed tomography (CT) imaging studies from 20 subjects having one baseline and three consecutive follow-up imaging studies with and without ePAD. The radiologist made measurements of target lesions in each imaging study using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria, initially with the aid of ePAD, and then after a 30-day washout period, the exams were reread without ePAD. The mean total time required to review the images and summarize measurements of target lesions was 15% (P < .039) shorter using ePAD than without using this tool. In addition, it was possible to rapidly reanalyze the images to explore lesion cross-sectional area as an alternative imaging biomarker to linear measure. We conclude that ePAD appears promising to potentially improve reader efficiency for quantitative assessment of CT examinations, and it may enable discovery of future novel image-based biomarkers of cancer treatment response.

[1]  David A. Clunie,et al.  DICOM Structured Reporting , 2000 .

[2]  M. Christian,et al.  [New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors]. , 2000, Bulletin du cancer.

[3]  A R Padhani,et al.  Commentary. Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Wolfgang Meier,et al.  eXist: An Open Source Native XML Database , 2002, Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems.

[5]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Antonio Bernardini,et al.  IHE: integrating the healthcare enterprise, towards complete integration of healthcare information systems. , 2003, Rays.

[7]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Mark J Ratain,et al.  Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  3D Slicer , 2012, 2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821).

[10]  J E Husband,et al.  Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours – a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[11]  Hans-Peter Meinzer,et al.  DICOM structured reporting: Part 1. Overview and characteristics. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  M. Ratain.  Phase II Oncology Trials: Let's Be Positive , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[13]  Daniel C Sullivan,et al.  Functional imaging in lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Haesun Choi.  Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: Lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model , 2005, Current oncology reports.

[15]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Re: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (ovarian cancer). , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  S. Larson,et al.  The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[17]  K. Buetow.  Cyberinfrastructure: Empowering a "Third Way" in Biomedical Research , 2005, Science.

[18]  Rabiya S Tuma,et al.  Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  L. Schwartz,et al.  Imaging response assessment in oncology , 2006, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[20]  C. Langlotz.  RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[21]  P. Russo.  Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma , 2006 .

[22]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[23]  Wafik S El-Deiry,et al.  Imaging and oncologic drug development. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  C. Jaffe.  Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Haesun Choi,et al.  We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  Apurva A Desai,et al.  Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Paul Nagy,et al.  Benefits of Using the DCM4CHE DICOM Archive , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[28]  John M Boone,et al.  Radiological interpretation 2020: toward quantitative image assessment. , 2007, Medical physics.

[29]  B. Cheson.  New staging and response criteria for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2008, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[30]  B. Cheson.  New response criteria for lymphomas in clinical trials. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[31]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  iPad: Semantic Annotation and Markup of Radiological Images , 2008, AMIA.

[32]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[33]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Tool Support to Enable Evaluation of the Clinical Response to Treatment , 2008, AMIA.

[34]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Medical Imaging on the Semantic Web: Annotation and Image Markup , 2008, AAAI Spring Symposium: Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration.

[35]  A. Jackson,et al.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[36]  Daniel C Sullivan,et al.  Imaging as a quantitative science. , 2008, Radiology.

[37]  Radiologist-oncologist workflow analysis in application of RECIST , 2008 .

[38]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Annotation and Image Markup: Accessing and Interoperating with the Semantic Content in Medical Imaging , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[39]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[40]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Semantic Reasoning with Image Annotations for Tumor Assessment , 2009, AMIA.

[41]  Robert Ford,et al.  Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[42]  Lawrence H. Schwartz,et al.  A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[43]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  A Semantic Image Annotation Model to Enable Integrative Translational Research , 2009, Summit on translational bioinformatics.

[44]  H. Greenspan,et al.  Automated retrieval of CT images of liver lesions on the basis of image similarity: method and preliminary results. , 2010, Radiology.

[45]  Tracy A Jaffe,et al.  Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[46]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Managing Biomedical Image Metadata for Search and Retrieval of Similar Images , 2011, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[47]  Matthew B Hoy.  HTML5: A New Standard for the Web , 2011, Medical reference services quarterly.

[48]  Yi Liu,et al.  On the Feasibility of Predicting Radiological Observations from Computational Imaging Features of Liver Lesions in CT Scans , 2011, 2011 IEEE First International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, Imaging and Systems Biology.

[49]  Abstract 4148: Integrating medical images and transcriptomic data in non-small cell lung cancer , 2011 .

[50]  Stefan L. Zimmerman,et al.  Informatics in radiology: automated structured reporting of imaging findings using the AIM standard and XML. , 2011, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[51]  D. Rubin,et al.  Computational approaches to assist in the evaluation of cancer treatment response , 2011 .

[52]  Hayit Greenspan,et al.  Automated temporal tracking and segmentation of lymphoma on serial CT examinations. , 2011, Medical physics.

[53]  Pattanasak Mongkolwat,et al.  Informatics in radiology: An open-source and open-access cancer biomedical informatics grid annotation and image markup template builder. , 2012, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[54]  Olivier Gevaert,et al.  Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data--methods and preliminary results. , 2012, Radiology.

[55]  Daniel L Rubin,et al.  Informatics in radiology: improving clinical work flow through an AIM database: a sample web-based lesion tracking application. , 2012, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[56]  Milan Sonka,et al.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[57]  Paul G. Nagy,et al.  Leveraging Internet Technologies with DICOM WADO , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[58]  Fernando Boada,et al.  Informatics methods to enable sharing of quantitative imaging research data. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[59]  Olivier Gevaert,et al.  Abstract 5561: Radiogenomic analysis indicates MR images are potentially predictive of EGFR mutation status in glioblastoma multiforme , 2012 .

[60]  T. Cloughesy,et al.  Response Assessment Criteria for Glioblastoma: Practical Adaptation and Implementation in Clinical Trials of Antiangiogenic Therapy , 2013, Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports.