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.

Medical imaging has seen substantial and rapid technical advances during the past decade, including advances in image acquisition devices, processing and analysis software, and agents to enhance specificity. Traditionally, medical imaging has defined anatomy, but increasingly newer, more advanced, imaging technologies provide biochemical and physiologic information based on both static and dynamic modalities. These advanced technologies are important not only for detecting disease but for characterizing and assessing change of disease with time or therapy. Because of the rapidity of these advances, research to determine the utility of quantitative imaging in either clinical research or clinical practice has not had time to mature. Methods to appropriately develop, assess, regulate, and reimburse must be established for these advanced technologies. Efficient and methodical processes that meet the needs of stakeholders in the biomedical research community, therapeutics developers, and health care delivery enterprises will ultimately benefit individual patients. To help address this, the authors formed a collaborative program-the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. This program draws from the very successful precedent set by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise effort but is adapted to the needs of imaging science. Strategic guidance supporting the development, qualification, and deployment of quantitative imaging biomarkers will lead to improved standardization of imaging tests, proof of imaging test performance, and greater use of imaging to predict the biologic behavior of tissue and monitor therapy response. These, in turn, confer value to corporate stakeholders, providing incentives to bring new and innovative products to market.

Quantitative biomarkers from medical images are becoming important tools for clinical diagnosis, staging, monitoring, treatment planning, and development of new therapies. While there is a rich history of the development of quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) techniques, little attention has been paid to the validation and comparison of the computer algorithms that implement the QIB measurements. In this paper we provide a framework for QIB algorithm comparisons. We first review and compare various study designs, including designs with the true value (e.g. phantoms, digital reference images, and zero-change studies), designs with a reference standard (e.g. studies testing equivalence with a reference standard), and designs without a reference standard (e.g. agreement studies and studies of algorithm precision). The statistical methods for comparing QIB algorithms are then presented for various study types using both aggregate and disaggregate approaches. We propose a series of steps for establishing the performance of a QIB algorithm, identify limitations in the current statistical literature, and suggest future directions for research.

This study was designed to characterize the reproducibility of measurement for tumor volumes and their longest tumor diameters (LDs) and estimate the potential impact of using changes in tumor volumes instead of LDs as the basis for response assessments. We studied patients with advanced lung cancer who have been observed longitudinally with x-ray computed tomography in a multinational trial. A total of 71 time points from 10 patients with 13 morphologically complex target lesions were analyzed. A total of 6461 volume measurements and their corresponding LDs were made by seven independent teams using their own work flows and image analysis tools. Interteam agreement and overall interrater concurrence were characterized. Interteam agreement between volume measurements was better than between LD measurements (ı = 0.945 vs 0.734, P = .005). The variability in determining the nadir was lower for volumes than for LDs (P = .005). Use of standard thresholds for the RECIST-based method and use of experimentally determined cutoffs for categorizing responses showed that volume measurements had a significantly greater sensitivity for detecting partial responses and disease progression. Earlier detection of progression would have led to earlier changes in patient management in most cases. Our findings indicate that measurement of changes in tumor volumes is adequately reproducible. Using tumor volumes as the basis for response assessments could have a positive impact on both patient management and clinical trials. More authoritative work to qualify or discard changes in volume as the basis for response assessments should proceed.

Specific Aim: To review the evidence indicating that volumetric image analysis of computed tomography scans meets specifications for qualification as a biomarker in clinical trials or the management of individual patients with lung cancer. Methods: Claims of value were broken down into questions about technical feasibility, accuracy, the precision of measurement, sensitivity, the correlations with health outcomes, and the risks of producing misleading information. For each claim, the pertinent literature was reviewed. Results: Technical feasibility has now been shown, but only in limited contexts. Accuracy has been demonstrated, but only for tumors with favorable anatomical features. Measurement error still makes the assessment of change in small nodules precarious in diagnostic settings unless rigorous image acquisition and analysis procedures are followed. Precision is sufficient in some larger masses to make volumetrics a sensitive biomarker. In a few trials, correlations with clinical outcomes have been higher for volumetric-based measures than for unidimensional or bidimensional diameters. Value in clinical practice settings and clinical trials has been suggested, but not proven. Conclusion: The weight of the evidence indicates there are circumstances in which volumetric image analysis adds value to clinical trial science and the practice of medicine.

The results of our study showed that software algorithms can be used with routine CT angiography acquisitions to improve the accuracy of atherosclerotic plaque tissue characteristic quantitation va... Purpose To (a) evaluate whether plaque tissue characteristics determined with conventional computed tomographic (CT) angiography could be quantitated at higher levels of accuracy by using image pro...