WIDEN: A tool for medical image management in multicenter clinical trials

Abstract

Background

It has been proposed that in clinical trials in which the therapeutic strategy is driven by functional imaging, central review of the images should be done in real time.

Purpose

We report our experience with a new tool for image exchange and review, called Web-Based Imaging Diagnosis by Expert Network (WIDEN), which we implemented for the HD0607 prospective multicenter Italian clinical trial in which Hodgkin lymphoma treatment was adapted based on results of an interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan performed after the first two cycles of chemotherapy.

Methods

We used WIDEN for general management of the clinical trial, site imaging qualification, image exchange, workflow control, blinded independent central review, inter-observer variability assessment, consensus creation, audit, and statistical analysis.

Results

As of February 2013, the interim PET was available for 512 patients; upon central review, 103 of the scans were judged to be positive and 409 to be negative. The median scan uploading and downloading times were 1 min, 25 s and 1 min, 55 s, respectively; the average and median times for diagnosis exchange were 47 h, 53 min and 37 h, 43 min, respectively. The binary concordance between pairs of reviewers (Cohen’s kappa) ranged from 0.72 to 0.85. The 5-point scale concordance among all reviewers (Krippendorf’s alpha) was 0.77.

Conclusions

WIDEN proved to be an effective tool for medical imaging exchange and online review. Data security, simplicity, feasibility, and prompt scan review were demonstrated. Central reviews were completed promptly.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gambhir

. Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography. Nat Rev Cancer 2002; 2: 683–93.

Juweid

Cheson

. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006; 6354: 496–507.

Juweid

Cheson

. Role of positron emission tomography in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4577–80.

Munker

Glass

Griffeth

. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1669–704.

Hoh

Glaspy

Rosen

. Whole-body FDG-PET for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 343–48.

Jerusalem

Geguin

Fassotte

. Whole-body positron emission tomography using ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999; 94: 429–33.

Spaepen

Stoobants

Dupont

. Can positron emission tomography with [⁽¹⁸⁾F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol 2001; 115: 272–78.

De Wit

Bohuslavizki

Buchert

. ¹⁸FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 29–37.

Zijlstra

Lindauer-van der Werf

Hoekstra

. ¹⁸F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: A systematic review. Haematologica 2006; 91: 522–29.

10.

Hutchings

Loft

Hansen

. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006; 107: 52–59.

11.

Gallamini

Rigacci

Merli

. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica 2006; 9: 475–81.

12.

Terasawa

Lau

Bardet

. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1906–14.

13.

Gallamini

Hutchings

Rigacci

. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to International Prognostic Score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3746–52.

14.

Hutchings

Barrington

. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 21S–30S.

15.

ClinicalTrials.gov (Gruppo Italiano Terapie Innovative nei Linfomi (GITIL)). Positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted chemotherapy in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00795613 (2008, accessed 8 October 2013).

16.

Gallamini

Patti

Viviani

. Early chemotherapy intensification with BEACOPP in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients with a interim-PET positive after two ABVD courses. Br J Haematol 2011; 152: 551–60.

17.

Biggi

Gallamini

Chauvie

. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med 2013; 54(5): 683–90.

18.

A randomised phase III trial to assess response adapted therapy using FDG-PET imaging in patients with newly diagnoses, advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. Available at: http://www.haematologyclinicaltrials.co.uk/trials/24 (2011, accessed 8 October 2013).

19.

Meignan

Gallamini

Haioun

. Report on the first international workshop on interim PET scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2009; 50: 1257–60.

20.

Kagadis

Kloukinas

Philbin

. Cloud computing in medical imaging. Med Phys 2013; doi: 10.1118/1.4811272 (Epub ahead of print 21 June 2013).

21.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2007 Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2007.

22.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2001 Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2001.

23.

American College of Radiology. ACR Technical Standard for Medical Nuclear Physics Performance Monitoring of PET Imaging Equipment. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2006.

24.

American College of Radiology. ACR Technical Standard for Medical Nuclear Physics Performance Monitoring of PET/CT Imaging Equipment. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2008.

25.

EANM Physics Committee, Busemann Sokole

Płachcínska

. Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 662–71.

26.

Bombardieri

Aktolun

Baum

. FDG-PET: Procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 115–24.

27.

Bidgood

Horii

. Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. Radiographics 1992; 12: 345–55.

28.

Paul

Seib

Prescott

. The Internet and clinical trials: Background, online resources, examples and issues. J Med Internet Res 2005; 16: e5.

29.

ESA PSS-05. Guide to user requirements definition phase. European Space Agency, Paris, 1994.

30.

Barrington

Qian

Somer

. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 1824–33.

31.

Cohen

. A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37–46.

32.

Hayes

Krippendorff

. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Method Meas 2007; 1: 77–89.

33.

Dodd

Korn

Freidlin

. Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: Important design element or unnecessary expense? J Clin Oncol 2008; 22: 3791–96.

34.

Barrington

Mackewn

Schleyer

. Establishment of a UK-wide network to facilitate the acquisition of quality assured FDG-PET data for clinical trials in lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 739–45.

35.

Meignan

Itti

Bardet

. Development and application of a real-time on-line blinded independent central review of interim PET scans to determine treatment allocation in lymphoma trials. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2739–41.

36.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1997; 33: 159–74.