Bell Laura C, Semmineh Natenael, An Hongyu, Eldeniz Cihat, Wahl Richard, Schmainda Kathleen M, Prah Melissa A, Erickson Bradley J, Korfiatis Panagiotis, Wu Chengyue, Sorace Anna G, Yankeelov Thomas E, Rutledge Neal, Chenevert Thomas L, Malyarenko Dariya, Liu Yichu, Brenner Andrew, Hu Leland S, Zhou Yuxiang, Boxerman Jerrold L, Yen Yi-Fen, Kalpathy-Cramer Jayashree, Beers Andrew L, Muzi Mark, Madhuranthakam Ananth J, Pinho Marco, Johnson Brian, Quarles C Chad
Division of Neuroimaging Research, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Tomography. 2019 Mar;5(1):110-117. doi: 10.18383/j.tom.2018.00041.
Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) cannot be used as a response metric in clinical trials, in part, because of variations in biomarker consistency and associated interpretation across sites, stemming from differences in image acquisition and postprocessing methods (PMs). This study leveraged a dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging digital reference object to characterize rCBV consistency across 12 sites participating in the Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN), specifically focusing on differences in site-specific imaging protocols (IPs; n = 17), and PMs (n = 19) and differences due to site-specific IPs and PMs (n = 25). Thus, high agreement across sites occurs when 1 managing center processes rCBV despite slight variations in the IP. This result is most likely supported by current initiatives to standardize IPs. However, marked intersite disagreement was observed when site-specific software was applied for rCBV measurements. This study's results have important implications for comparing rCBV values across sites and trials, where variability in PMs could confound the comparison of therapeutic effectiveness and/or any attempts to establish thresholds for categorical response to therapy. To overcome these challenges and ensure the successful use of rCBV as a clinical trial biomarker, we recommend the establishment of qualifying and validating site- and trial-specific criteria for scanners and acquisition methods (eg, using a validated phantom) and the software tools used for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging analysis (eg, using a digital reference object where the ground truth is known).
相对脑血容量(rCBV)不能用作临床试验中的反应指标,部分原因是各研究点生物标志物的一致性及相关解读存在差异,这源于图像采集和后处理方法(PMs)的不同。本研究利用动态磁敏感对比磁共振成像数字参考物,对参与定量成像网络(QIN)的12个研究点的rCBV一致性进行了表征,特别关注各研究点特定成像方案(IPs;n = 17)和PMs(n = 19)的差异,以及由各研究点特定IPs和PMs导致的差异(n = 25)。因此,尽管IPs略有差异,但当由1个管理中心处理rCBV时,各研究点之间仍具有高度一致性。这一结果很可能得到了当前标准化IPs举措的支持。然而,当使用各研究点特定的软件进行rCBV测量时,观察到了明显的研究点间差异。本研究结果对于比较不同研究点和试验中的rCBV值具有重要意义,因为PMs的变异性可能会混淆治疗效果的比较和/或任何确定治疗分类反应阈值的尝试。为了克服这些挑战并确保成功将rCBV用作临床试验生物标志物,我们建议为扫描仪和采集方法(例如,使用经过验证的模型)以及用于动态磁敏感对比磁共振成像分析的软件工具(例如,使用已知真实情况的数字参考物)建立针对各研究点和试验的合格及验证标准。