The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions

Abstract

The development and implementation of quantitative imaging biomarkers has been hampered by the inconsistent and often incorrect use of terminology related to these markers. Sponsored by the Radiological Society of North America, an interdisciplinary group of radiologists, statisticians, physicists, and other researchers worked to develop a comprehensive terminology to serve as a foundation for quantitative imaging biomarker claims. Where possible, this working group adapted existing definitions derived from national or international standards bodies rather than invent new definitions for these terms. This terminology also serves as a foundation for the design of studies that evaluate the technical performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers and for studies of algorithms that generate the quantitative imaging biomarkers from clinical scans. This paper provides examples of research studies and quantitative imaging biomarker claims that use terminology consistent with these definitions as well as examples of the rampant confusion in this emerging field. We provide recommendations for appropriate use of quantitative imaging biomarker terminological concepts. It is hoped that this document will assist researchers and regulatory reviewers who examine quantitative imaging biomarkers and will also inform regulatory guidance. More consistent and correct use of terminology could advance regulatory science, improve clinical research, and provide better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

Keywords

Quantitative terminology definitions bias precision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Buckler

Bresolin

Dunnick

. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011; 258: 906–914.

Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, International vocabulary of metrology – basic and general concepts and associated terms, http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp40/upload/International-Vocabulary-of-Metrology.pdf (accessed 27 November 2011).

International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html (accessed 1 August 2012).

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), http://www.clsi.org/ (accessed 1 August 2012).

Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results, http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/appd.1.html (1993, accessed 27 November 2011).

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm284395.htm .

Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 89–95.

https://www.rsna.org/QIBA.aspx .

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm#accelerated .

10.

Stevens

. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946; 103: 677–680.

11.

Coxson

. Quantitative chest tomography in COPD research: Chairman’s summary. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008; 5: 874–877.

12.

Dirksen

. Monitoring the progress of emphysema by repeat computed tomography scans with focus on noise reduction. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008; 5: 925–928.

13.

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas), A.C.o.R. (ACR), Editor. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.

14.

Zalis

Barish

Choi

. CT colonography reporting and data system: A consensus proposal. Radiology 2005; 236: 3–9.

15.

O’Connor

Jackson

Asselin

. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 766–776.

16.

Matsuya

Kuroda

Matsumoto

. A new phantom using polyethylene glycol as an apparent diffusion coefficient standard for MR imaging. Int J Oncol 2009; 35: 893–900.

17.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section1/mpc113.htm .

18.

Barnhart

Haber

Lin

. An overview on assessing agreement with continuous measurements. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 529–569.

19.

Sullivan

Gatsonis

. Response to treatment series: part 1 and introduction, measuring tumor response—challenges in the era of molecular medicine. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 15–17.

20.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

21.

Nevill

Atkinson

. Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. Br J Sports Med 1997; 31: 314–318.

22.

Kottner

Gajewski

Streiner

. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS). Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48: 659–660.

23.

Malyarenko D, Galban CJ, Londy FJ, et al. Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 37: 1238–1246.

24.

Vanderhoek

Perlman

Jeraj

. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 4–11.

25.

Ramani

Liu

Rosen

. Regularization parameter selection for nonlinear iterative image restoration and MRI reconstruction using GCV and SURE-based methods. IEEE Trans Image Process 2012; 21: 3659–3672.

26.

Doot

Muzi

Peterson

. Kinetic analysis of 18F-fluoride PET images of breast cancer bone metastases. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 521–527.

27.

Korukonda

Doyley

. Visualizing the radial and circumferential strain distribution within vessel phantoms using synthetic-aperture ultrasound elastography. IEEE Trans Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Frequency Control 2012; 59: 1639–1653.

28.

Linnet

Kondratovich

. A partly nonparametric approach for determination of the limit of detection. Clin Chem 2004; 50: 732–740.

29.

CLSI EP17-A2 (2012). Evaluation of detection capability for clinical laboratory measurement procedures; Approved Guideline – 2nd ed.

30.

Fletcher

Djulbegovic

Soares

. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 480–508.

31.

Weber

. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1S–10S.

32.

http://rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/QIBA/QIBA_FDG-PET_Profile_v105_Publicly_Reviewed_Version_FINAL_11Dec2013.pdf .

33.

Prentice

. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431–440.