Quantitative imaging biomarkers: The application of advanced image processing and analysis to clinical and preclinical decision making

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 97-108

  Prescott, Jeffrey William ^a  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Image analysis; Image processing; Quantitative imaging biomarkers

Indexed keywords

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPUTER-ASSISTED METHODS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; EXTRACTION OF INFORMATION; IMAGE PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS; MEDICAL DEVICES; POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS; QUANTITATIVE IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITIES;

BIOMARKERS; BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT; DECISION MAKING; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL IMAGING; RESEARCH;

IMAGE PROCESSING;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; NEOPLASM; OSTEOARTHRITIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; NEOPLASMS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84873060417     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9465-7     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, 2004
2. Administration USFaD: FDA New Molecular Entities, 2011
3. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or Stagnation: Critical Path Opportunities Report, 2006
4. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or stagnation: Critical Path Opportunities List, 2006
5. US Food and Drug Administration: The Sentinel Initiative: National Strategy for Monitoring Medical Product Safety, 2008
6. Administration USFaD: Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health: A Framework for FDA's Regulatory Science Initiative, 2010
7. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Available at https://www.trialstransformation.org/. Accessed December 3 2010.
8. NIH Roadmap. Available at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/. Accessed December 3 2010.
9. Smith JJ, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH: Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology's future. Radiology 227:633-638, 2003
10. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89-95, 2001
11. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M: The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., New York, 2005
12. O'Connor JPB, Jackson A, Asselin M-C, Buckley DL, Parker GJM, Jayson GC: Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. The Lancet Oncology 9:766-776, 2008
13. Altman RD, Gold GE: Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 15:A1-A56, 2007
14. Weir CJ, Walley RJ: Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Statistics in Medicine 25:183-203, 2006
15. Echt DS, et al: Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med 324:781-788, 1991
16. Clarke LP, Sriram RD, Schilling LB: Imaging as a biomarker: standards for change measurements in therapy workshop summary. Academic Radiology 15:501-530, 2008
17. Morra JH, Zhuowen T, Apostolova LG, Green AE, Toga AW, Thompson PM: Comparison of AdaBoost and support vector machines for detecting Alzheimer's disease through automated hippocampal segmentation. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:30-43, 2010
18. US Food and Drug Administration: Critical Path Opportunities Initiated During 2006, 2007
19. US Food and Drug Administration: Key FDA Critical Path Activities Under Way in 2007, 2007
20. Buckwalter JA: Orthopaedic Basic Science: Biology and Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2000
21. Felson DT, et al: Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 133:635-646, 2000
22. Eckstein F, Mosher T, Hunter D: Imaging of knee osteoarthritis: data beyond the beauty. Curr Opin Rheumatol 19:435-443, 2007
23. The Atlas of Standard Radiographs of Arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44 Suppl 4:iv46-iv72, 2005
24. Eckstein F, Burstein D, Link TM: Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. NMR Biomed 19:822-854, 2006
25. Eckstein F, et al: Proposal for a nomenclature for magnetic resonance imaging based measures of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 14:974-983, 2006
26. Wirth W, Eckstein F: A technique for regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage thickness based on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 27:737-744, 2008
27. Gray ML, Eckstein F, Peterfy C, Dahlberg L, Kim YJ, Sorensen AG: Toward imaging biomarkers for osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res:S175-181, 2004
28. Peterfy CG, Schneider E, Nevitt M: The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:1433-1441, 2008
29. Fripp J, Crozier S, Warfield SK, Ourselin S: Automatic segmentation and quantitative analysis of the articular cartilages from magnetic resonance images of the knee. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:55-64
30. Dodin P, Pelletier J, Martel-Pelletier J, Abram F: Automatic human knee cartilage segmentation from 3-D magnetic resonance images. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 57:2699-2711
31. Yin Y, Zhang X, Williams R, Wu X, Anderson DD, Sonka M: LOGISMOS - layered optimal graph image segmentation of multiple objects and surfaces: cartilage segmentation in the knee joint. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:2023-2037, 2010
32. Folkesson J, Dam EB, Olsen OF, Pettersen PC, Christiansen C: Segmenting articular cartilage automatically using a voxel classification approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26:106-115, 2007
33. Williams TG, et al.: Anatomically corresponded regional analysis of cartilage in asymptomatic and osteoarthritic knees by statistical shape modelling of the bone. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:1541-1559
34. Andreoli TE, Carpenter CCJ, Griggs RC, Benjamin IJ: Andreoli and Carpenter's Cecil Essentials of Medicine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2007
35. Holtzman DM, Morris JC, Goate AM: Alzheimer's disease: the challenge of the second century. Sci Transl Med 3:77 sr71, 2011
36. Hampel H, et al: Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: academic, industry and regulatory perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:560-574, 2010
37. Jack CR, et al: The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27:685-691, 2008
38. Kantarci K, Jack Jr, CR: Quantitative magnetic resonance techniques as surrogate markers of Alzheimer's disease. NeuroRx 1:196-205, 2004
39. Martin J, Pentland A, Sclaroff S, Kikinis R: Characterization of neuropathological shape deformations. Pattern analysis and machine intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 20:97-112, 1998
40. Duchesne S, Caroli A, Geroldi C, Barillot C, Frisoni GB, Collins DL: MRI-based automated computer classification of probable AD versus normal controls. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 27:509-520, 2008
41. Gerber S, Tasdizen T, Thomas Fletcher P, Joshi S, Whitaker R: Manifold modeling for brain population analysis. Medical Image Analysis 14:643-653, 2010
42. Lei W, et al: Large deformation diffeomorphism and momentum based hippocampal shape discrimination in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 26:462-470, 2007
43. Sabuncu MR, Balci SK, Shenton ME, Golland P: Image-driven population analysis through mixture modeling. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:1473-1487, 2009
44. Sabuncu MR, Yeo BTT, Van Leemput K, Fischl B, Golland P: A generative model for image segmentation based on label fusion. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:1714-1729, 2010
45. Freeborough PA, Fox NC: MR image texture analysis applied to the diagnosis and tracking of Alzheimer's disease. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 17:475-478, 1998
46. Eisenhauer EA, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228-247, 2009
47. Armato 3rd, SG, et al: The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of change-analysis software. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84:448-456, 2008
48. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Larson SM: Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: anatomic and functional biomarkers. J Nucl Med 50:239-249, 2009
49. Girvin F, Ko JP: Pulmonary nodules: detection, assessment, and CAD. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1057-1069, 2008
50. Wang TC, Karayiannis NB: Detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms using wavelets. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 17:498-509, 1998
51. Jong Kook K, Hyun Wook P: Statistical textural features for detection of microcalcifications in digitized mammograms. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 18:231-238, 1999
52. Liyang W, Yongyi Y, Nishikawa RM, Yulei J: A study on several machine-learning methods for classification of malignant and benign clustered microcalcifications. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 24:371-380, 2005
53. Tofts PS: Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:91-101, 1997
54. Tofts PS, et al: Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223-232, 1999
55. Armitage P, Behrenbruch C, Brady M, Moore N: Extracting and visualizing physiological parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Medical Image Analysis 9:315-329, 2005
56. Schmid VJ, Whitcher B, Padhani AR, Guang-Zhong Y: Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images based on Bayesian P-splines. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 28:789-798, 2009
57. Mescam M, Kretowski M, Bezy-Wendling J: Multiscale model of liver DCE-MRI towards a better understanding of tumor complexity. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:699-707, 2010
58. Sullivan DC, Gatsonis C: Response to treatment series: part 1 and introduction, measuring tumor response - challenges in the era of molecular medicine. Am J Roentgenol 197:15-17
59. Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Rezai P, Benson AB, III, Salem R: Response to treatment series: part 2, tumor response assessment - using new and conventional criteria. Am J Roentgenol 197:18-27
60. Pepe MS, et al: Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:1054-1061, 2001