Obuchowski, Nancy A.

Abstract Emphysema’s significant morbidity and mortality underscore the need for reliable outcome metrics in clinical trials. However, commonly accepted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcome measures do not adequately capture emphysema severity or progression. Computed tomography (CT) metrics have been validated as accurate indicators of pathological emphysema and predictors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease progression, exacerbations, and mortality. This position paper reviews the evidence supporting CT densitometry as a biomarker for emphysema, establishes implementation standards, and highlights areas for future research. A systematic literature review addressed three key questions: whether CT densitometry can be used as a diagnostic biomarker of emphysema, whether CT densitometry can be used as a prognostic biomarker, and whether longitudinal change in densitometry can be used as a disease progression monitoring biomarker. Emphysema metrics, such as the percentage of low attenuation areas below −950 Hounsfield units, are validated, highly reproducible diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Volume-adjusted lung density is recommended for disease monitoring. Both metrics demonstrate a scan–rescan intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 with proper technique. The paper also discusses relevant CT physics, techniques, and sources of variation, including technical factors, physiological changes, and software analysis. Key recommendations for clinical trials include using standardized CT techniques, proper subject selection, and longitudinal evaluation with volume-adjusted lung density.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance Profile for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI and its longitudinal claims for the precision of a DSC MRI–derived quantitative imaging biomarker to assess the relative cerebral blood volume changes in gliomas are summarized.

On behalf of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) Quantitative MR Study Group, this article provides an overview of considerations for the development, validation, qualification, and dissemination of quantitative MR (qMR) methods. This process is framed in terms of two central technical performance properties, i.e., bias and precision. Although qMR is confounded by undesired effects, methods with low bias and high precision can be iteratively developed and validated. For illustration, two distinct qMR methods are discussed throughout the manuscript: quantification of liver proton‐density fat fraction, and cardiacT1. These examples demonstrate the expansion of qMR methods from research centers toward widespread clinical dissemination. The overall goal of this article is to provide trainees, researchers, and clinicians with essential guidelines for the development and validation of qMR methods, as well as an understanding of necessary steps and potential pitfalls for the dissemination of quantitative MR in research and in the clinic.

ObjectivesTo quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms.MethodsTwo elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz.ResultsThe SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a − 0.27 ± 0.027‐m/s (−12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60‐Hz vibration source.ConclusionsShear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140‐Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.