Quantitative image analysis: Software systems in drug development trials

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 8, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 451-458

  Pathak, Sayan D ^a   Ng, Lydia ^a   Wyman, Brad ^a   Fogarasi, Stephen ^a   Racki, Stephen ^a   Oelund, John C ^a   Sparks, Bobbi ^a   Chalana, Vikram ^a  

^a Insightful Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug Discovery; Image analysis; MRI; Multiple sclerosis; PET; Pharmaceutical Science; Techniques Methods; Tissue segmentation

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OSTEOARTHRITIS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REVIEW; TUMOR VOLUME; X RAY ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; SOFTWARE; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 0037866422     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02698-9     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Beckmann N., et al. From anatomy to the target: contributions of magnetic resonance imaging to preclinical pharmaceutical research. Anat. Rec. 265:2001;85-100.
2. Zijdenbos A.P., et al. Automatic 'pipeline' analysis of 3-D MRI data for clinical trials: application to multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 21:2002;1280-1291.
3. van Rietbergen B., et al. High-resolution MRI and micro-FE for the evaluation of changes in bone mechanical properties during longitudinal clinical trials: application to calcaneal bone in postmenopausal women after one year of idoxifene treatment. Clin. Biomech. 17:2002;81-88.
4. Broderick J.P., et al. Temporal changes in brain volume and cognition in a randomized treatment trial of vascular dementia. J. Neuroimaging. 11:2001;6-12.
5. Sahani D., et al. Quantitative measurements of medical images for pharmaceutical clinical trials: comparison between on-site and off-site assessments. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 174:2000;1159-1162.
6. Miller A.B., et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 74:1981;207-214.
7. Paty D.W., Li D.K. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. II. MRI analysis results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 43:1993;662-667.
8. Peterfy C.G., et al. Quantification of articular cartilage in the knee with pulsed saturation transfer subtraction and fat-suppressed MR imaging: optimization and validation. Radiology. 192:1994;485-491.
9. Peterfy C.G. Role of MR imaging in clinical research studies. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 5:2001;365-378.
10. Cohen Z.A., et al. Knee cartilage topography, thickness, and contact areas from MRI: in-vitro calibration and in-vivo measurements. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 7:1999;95-109.
11. Stammberger T., et al. Determination of 3D cartilage thickness data from MR imaging: computational method and reproducibility in the living. Magn. Reson. Med. 41:1999;529-536.
12. Wluka A.E., et al. The determinants of change in tibial cartilage volume in osteoarthritic knees. Arthritis Rheum. 46:2002;2065-2072.
13. Crum W.R., et al. Automated hippocampal segmentation by regional fluid registration of serial MRI: validation and application in Alzheimer's disease. Neuroimage. 13:2001;847-855.
14. Fox S., et al. Using serial registered brain magnetic resonance imaging to measure disease progression in Alzheimer disease: power calculations and estimates of sample size to detect treatment effects. Arch. Neurol. 57:2000;339-344.
15. Honeyman J.C., et al. Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS). Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 23:1994;101-158.
16. Shabana W., et al. Reducing inter-observer variation in thyroid volume calculation using a new formula and technique. Eur. J. Ultrasound. 16:2003;207-210.
17. Nathan M.S., et al. Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? Br. J. Urol. 77:1996;401-407.
18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration '21 CFR Part 11; Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures ( http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/esigglos.html ).
19. Pal N.R., et al. A review on image segmentation techniques. Patt. Recognit. 26:1993;1277-1294.
20. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (2003) Digital Image Communications in Medicine Standard, Rosslyn, VA.
21. Pham D.L., et al. Current methods in medical image segmentation. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2:2000;315-337.
22. Smith S.M., et al. Accurate, robust, and automated longitudinal and cross-sectional brain change analysis. Neuroimage. 17:2002;479-489.
23. Olabarriaga S.D., et al. Interaction in the segmentation of medical images: a survey. Med. Image Anal. 5:2001;127-142.
24. U. S. Food and Drug Administration (2003) QSR Manual (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/qsr/03desgn.html ).
25. IEEE Std 730.1 (1998), IEEE Guide for Software Quality Assurance Planning, Software Engineering Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society.
26. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1999) Guidance for Industry - computerized systems used in clinical trials; (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/bimo/ffinalcct.pdf).
27. Silverwright G., Elliot P. Interactive region and volume growing for segmenting volumes in MR and CT images. Med. Inform. (Lond.). 19:1994;71-80.
28. Heckbert P.S. A seed fill algorithm. Glassner A.S. Graphics Gems. 1990;275-284 Academic Press.
29. Falcao X., et al. User steered image segmentation paradigms: live wire and live lane. Graph. Models Image Proc. 60:1998;233-260.
30. Cohen L.D., Kimmel R. Global minimum for active contour models: a minimal path approach. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 24:1997;57-78.
31. Raya S.P., Udupa J.K. Shape-based interpolation of multidimensional objects. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 9:1990;32-42.
32. Xu C., et al. Image segmentation using deformable models. Handbook Med. Imag. 2:2000;129-174.
33. McInerney T., Terzopoulos D. Deformable models in medical image analysis: a survey. Med. Image Anal. 1:1996;91-108.
34. Makowski P., et al. Two-phase active contour method for semiautomatic segmentation of the heart and blood vessels from MRI images for 3D visualization. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 26:2002;9-17.
35. Stammberger T., et al. Interobserver reproducibility of quantitative cartilage measurements: comparison of B-spline snakes and manual segmentation. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 17:1999;1033-1042.
36. Clarke L.P., et al. MRI segmentation: methods and applications. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 13:1995;343-368.
37. Besag J. On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures. J.R. Stat. Soc. 48:1986;259-279.
38. Choi H.S., et al. Partial volume tissue classification of multichannel magntic resonance images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 10:1991;395-407.
39. Duda R.O., Hart P.E. Pattern Classification. 2000;Wiley.
40. Bankman I.N. Handbook of Medical Imaging: Processing and Analysis. 2000;Academic Press.
41. West J., et al. Comparison and evaluation of retrospective intermodality image registration techniques. SPIE Med. Imag. Proc. 2710:1996;332-347.
42. Thirion J.P. Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell's demons. Med. Image Anal. 2:1998;243-260.
43. Kybic, J. and Unser, M. (2000) Multidimensional Elastic Registration of Image Using Splines. Proc. 2000 IEEE Intl. Conf. Image Proc., Vancouver BC, Canada, vol. II, 455-458.
44. Gee J.C., et al. Elastically deforming 3D atlas to match anatomical brain images. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 17:1993;225-236.
45. Stammberger T., et al. Elastic registration of 3D cartilage surfaces from MR image data for detecting local changes in cartilage thickness. Magn. Reson. Med. 44:2000;592-601.
46. Maintz J.B.A., Viergever M.A. A survey of medical image registration. Med. Image Anal. 2:1998;1-36.
47. Viola P., Wells W.M. III. Alignment by maximization of mutual information. Grimson E., et al. Intl. Conf. Comput. Vis. 1995;16-23 IEEE Computer Society Press.
48. Collignon A., et al. Automated multimodality image registration based on information theory. Bizais Y., et al. Information Processing in Medical Imaging. 1995;263-274 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49. Rueckert L., et al. Non-rigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 18:1999;712-721.
50. Lakhanpal S.K., Maravilla K.R. Multiple sclerosis. Stark D.D., Bradley W.G. 3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 3:1999;1379-1402 Mosby, St. Louis.
51. Nyul, L.G. and Udupa, J. K. (2000) MR image analysis in multiple sclerosis. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Technical Report MIPG-271, June 2000.
52. Ashton E.A., et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of manual and semiautomated quantification of MS lesions by MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 17:2003;300-308.
53. Guttmann C.R., et al. Quantitative follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis using MRI: reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 9:1999;509-518.
54. Filippi M., et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in schemes for estimating volume of brain lesions on MR images in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 19:1998;239-244.