Citations

AbstractPurpose has often been proposed as a quantitative imaging biomarker for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response assessment for various tumors. None of the many software tools for quantification are standardized. The ISMRM Open Science Initiative for Perfusion Imaging–Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced (OSIPI‐DCE) challenge was designed to benchmark methods to better help the efforts to standardize measurement.MethodsA framework was created to evaluate values produced by DCE‐MRI analysis pipelines to enable benchmarking. The perfusion MRI community was invited to apply their pipelines for quantification in glioblastoma from clinical and synthetic patients. Submissions were required to include the entrants' values, the applied software, and a standard operating procedure. These were evaluated using the proposed score defined with accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility components.ResultsAcross the 10 received submissions, the score ranged from 28% to 78% with a 59% median. The accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.92, 0.64 to 0.86, and 0.65 to 1.00, respectively (0–1 = lowest–highest). Manual arterial input function selection markedly affected the reproducibility and showed greater variability in analysis than automated methods. Furthermore, provision of a detailed standard operating procedure was critical for higher reproducibility.ConclusionsThis study reports results from the OSIPI‐DCE challenge and highlights the high inter‐software variability within estimation, providing a framework for ongoing benchmarking against the scores presented. Through this challenge, the participating teams were ranked based on the performance of their software tools in the particular setting of this challenge. In a real‐world clinical setting, many of these tools may perform differently with different benchmarking methodology.

Abstract As anticancer therapies designed to target specific molecular pathways have been developed, it has become critical to develop methods to assess the response induced by such agents. Although traditional, anatomic CT, and MRI examinations are useful in many settings, increasing evidence suggests that these methods cannot answer the fundamental biologic and physiologic questions essential for assessment and, eventually, prediction of treatment response in the clinical trial setting, especially in the critical period soon after treatment is initiated. To optimally apply advances in quantitative imaging methods to trials of targeted cancer therapy, new infrastructure improvements are needed that incorporate these emerging techniques into the settings where they are most likely to have impact. In this review, we first elucidate the needs for therapeutic response assessment in the era of molecularly targeted therapy and describe how quantitative imaging can most effectively provide scientifically and clinically relevant data. We then describe the tools and methods required to apply quantitative imaging and provide concrete examples of work making these advances practically available for routine application in clinical trials. We conclude by proposing strategies to surmount barriers to wider incorporation of these quantitative imaging methods into clinical trials and, eventually, clinical practice. Our goal is to encourage and guide the oncology community to deploy standardized quantitative imaging techniques in clinical trials to further personalize care for cancer patients and to provide a more efficient path for the development of improved targeted therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 284–90. ©2016 AACR.