Automated tracking of quantitative assessments of tumor burden in clinical trials

Translational Oncology

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 23-35

  Rubin, Daniel L ^a   Willrett, Debra ^a   O'Connor, Martin J ^a   Hage, Cleber ^b   Kurtz, Camille ^c   Moreira, Dilvan A ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c Huawei Technologies Co   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; ELECTRONIC PHYSICIAN ANNOTATION DEVICE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING; INTERNET; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGIST; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84902528556     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19365233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13796     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Curran SD, Muellner AU, and Schwartz LH (2006). Imaging response assessment in oncology. Cancer Imaging 6, S126-S130.
2. El-Deiry WS, Sigman CC, and Kelloff GJ (2006). Imaging and oncologic drug development. J Clin Oncol 24, 3261-3273.
3. Johnson JR, Williams G, and Pazdur R (2003). End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 21, 1404-1411.
4. Kelloff GJ, Krohn KA, Larson SM, Weissleder R, Mankoff DA, Hoffman JM, Link JM, Guyton KZ, Eckelman WC, Scher HI, et al. (2005). The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res 11, 7967-7985
5. Shankar LK and Sullivan DC (2005). Functional imaging in lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23, 3203-3211. PMID:15886307.
6. Taylor PT and Haverstick D (2005). Re: new guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (ovarian cancer). J Natl Cancer Inst 97, 151; author reply 152.
7. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, et al. (2000). New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92, 205-216.
8. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al. (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45, 228-247.
9. Cheson BD (2008). New staging and response criteria for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Clin North Am 46, 213-223, vii.
10. Cheson BD (2008). New response criteria for lymphomas in clinical trials. Ann Oncol 19(suppl 4), iv35-iv38.
11. Chinot OL, Macdonald DR, Abrey LE, Zahlmann G, Kerloëguen Y, and Cloughesy TF (2013). Response assessment criteria for glioblastoma: practical adaptation and implementation in clinical trials of antiangiogenic therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 13, 347.
12. O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Asselin MC, Buckley DL, Parker GJ, and Jayson GC (2008). Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 9, 766-776.
13. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: clinical trial end points for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071590.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2012.
14. Padhani AR and Husband JE (2000). Commentary. Are current tumour response criteria relevant for the 21st century? Br J Radiol 73, 1031-1033.
15. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, and Verweij J (2006). RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 42, 1031-1039.
16. Choi H (2005). Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model. Curr Oncol Rep 7, 307-311.
17. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, Ollivier L, King DM, Johnson R, and Reznek R (2004). Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 90, 2256-2260.
18. Tuma RS (2006). Sometimes size doesn't matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response rate endpoints. J Natl Cancer Inst 98, 1272-1274.
19. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, Podoloff DA, and Charnsangavej C (2007). We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 25, 1760-1764.
20. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, Eisenhauer E, Verweij J, Therasse P, and Party RW (2009). Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 45, 248-260.
21. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, and Gönen M (2009). A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer 45, 300-310.
22. Levy MA and Rubin DL (2008). Tool support to enable evaluation of the clinical response to treatment. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 399-403.
23. Boone JM (2007). Radiological interpretation 2020: toward quantitative image assessment. Med Phys 34, 4173-4179. PMID:18072481.
24. Sullivan DC (2008). Imaging as a quantitative science. Radiology 248, 328-332.
25. Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, and Sullivan DC (2010). Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195, 101-106.
26. Jaffe CC (2006). Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 24, 3245-3251.
27. Levy MA, Rubin DL, Edwards K, Burtness B, and Guardino A (2008). A radiologist-oncologist workflow analysis in application of RECIST. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol Annu Meet.
28. El-Maraghi RH and Eisenhauer EA (2008). Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. J Clin Oncol 26, 1346-1354.
29. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Szczylik C, Oudard S, Siebels M, Negrier S, Chevreau C, Solska E, Desai AA, et al. (2007). Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356, 125-134.
30. Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Flaherty KT, Kaye SB, Rosner GL, Gore M, Desai AA, Patnaik A, Xiong HQ, et al. (2006). Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24, 2505-2512.
31. Ratain MJ (2005). Phase II oncology trials: let's be positive. Clin Cancer Res 11, 5661-5662. PMID:16115898.
32. Ratain MJ and Eckhardt SG (2004). Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol 22, 4442-4445.
33. NIH Clinical Trials Working Group. Final CTWG report to the National Cancer Advisory Board, restructuring the national cancer clinical trials enterprise. Available at: http://integratedtrials.nci.nih.gov/ict/CTWG_report_June2005.pdf. Accessed December 21, 2008.
34. caBIG In Vivo Imaging Workspace. Annotation and image markup (AIM). Available at: https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/tools/AIM. Accessed December 26, 2008.
35. Rubin DL, Supekar K, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, and Channin DS (2009). Annotation and image markup: accessing and interoperating with the semantic content in medical imaging. IEEE Intell Syst 24, 57-65.
36. National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute: introduction to imaging in the caBIG program. In vivo imaging (IMAG) newcomer information. Available at: https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/workspaces/Imaging/imaging_newcomer. Accessed December 11, 2008.
37. Buetow KH (2005). Cyberinfrastructure: empowering a third way in biomedical research. Science 308, 821-824.
38. National Cancer Institute. Annotation and image markup AIM. Available at: https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/AIM/Annotation+and+Image+Markup+-+AIM. Accessed November 7, 2012.
39. Channin DS, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, Dave VV, and Rubin DL. The Annotation and Image Markup (AIM) project; version 2.0 update. In Scientific Paper, Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine Annual Scientific Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
40. Rubin DL, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, Supekar K, and Channin DS (2008). Medical imaging on the Semantic Web: Annotation and Image Markup. In 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration. Stanford University.
41. Rubin DL, Mongkolwat P, and Channin DS (2009). A semantic image annotation model to enable integrative translational research. Summit on Translat Bioinforma 2009, 106-110.
42. National Cancer Institute. The caBIG annotation and image markup standard: technical documents. Available at: https://gforge.nci.nih.gov/frs/?group_id=230. Accessed December 11, 2008.
43. Napel SA, Beaulieu CF, Rodriguez C, Cui J, Xu J, Gupta A, Korenblum D, Greenspan H, Ma Y, and Rubin DL (2010). Automated retrieval of CT images of liver lesions on the basis of image similarity: method and preliminary results. Radiology 256, 243-252.
44. Levy MA and Rubin DL (2011). Computational approaches to assist in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. Imaging Med 3, 233-246.
45. Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Xu J, Yu C, Rubin D, Zaharchuk G, Napel S, and Plevritis S (2012). Radiogenomic analysis indicates MR images are potentially predictive of EGFR mutation status in glioblastoma multiforme. AACR 103rd Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.
46. Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang C, Leung A, Quon A, Rubin DL, Napel S, and Plevritis S (2011). Integrating medical images and transcriptomic data in non-small cell lung cancer. In AACR 102nd Annual Meeting., Orlando, FL
47. Gevaert O, Xu JJ, Hoang CD, Leung AN, Xu Y, Quon A, Rubin DL, Napel S, and Plevritis SK (2012). Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data-methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264, 387-396.
48. Gimenez F, Xu J, Liu Y, Liu TT, Beaulieu C, Rubin DL, and Napel S (2011). On the feasibility of predicting radiological observations from computational imaging features of liver lesions in CT scans. In First IEEE Conference on Health care Informatics, Imaging, and Systems Biology (HISB). IEEE Computer Society, San Jose, CA.
49. Gimenez F, Xu J, Liu TT, Beaulieu C, Rubin DL, Napel S, and Liu Y (2011). Prediction of radiologist observations using computational image features: method and preliminary results. In Ninety-Seventy Annual Scientific Meeting of the RSNA, Chicago, IL.
50. Hoang C, Napel S, Gevaert O, Xu J, Rubin DL, Leung A, Merritt R, Whyte R, Shrager J, and Plevritis S (2011). NSCLC gene profiles correlate with specific CT characteristics: imageomics. In American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), Philadelphia, PA.
51. Napel S, Hoang C, Xu J, Gevaert O, Rubin DL, Plevritis S, Xu Y, Leung A, and Quon A (2011). Computational and semantic annotation of CT and PET images and integration with genomic assays of tumors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for decision support and discovery: method and preliminary results. In Ninety-Seventy Annual Scientific Meeting of the RSNA, Chicago, IL.
52. Plevritis S, Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang C, Leung A, Xu Y, Quon A, Rubin DL, and Napel S (2011). Rapid identification of prognostic imaging biomarkers for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) by integrating image features and gene expression and leveraging public gene expression databases. In Ninety-Seventy Annual Scientific Meeting of the RSNA, Chicago, IL.
53. Levy MA, Freymann JB, Kirby JS, Fedorov A, Fennessy FM, Eschrich SA, Berglund AE, Fenstermacher DA, Tan Y, Guo X, et al. (2012). Informatics methods to enable sharing of quantitative imaging research data. Magn Reson Imaging 30, 1249-1256.
54. Levy MA, O'Connor MJ, and Rubin DL (2009). Semantic reasoning with image annotations for tumor assessment. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009, 359-363.
55. Rubin DL, Rodriguez C, Shah P, and Beaulieu C (2008). iPad: semantic annotation and markup of radiological images. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 626-630.
56. National Cancer Institute. Annotation and image markup on ClearCanvas. Available at: https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/AIM/Annotation+and+Image+ Markup+-+AIM. Accessed November 7, 2012.
57. Klinger C. Aim on ClearCanvas Workstation documentation. Available at: https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/AIM/AIM+on+ClearCanvas+Workstation+Documentation. Accessed November 11, 2012.
58. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, et al. (2012). 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30, 1323-1341.
59. Pieper S, Halle M, and Kikinis R (2004). 3D slicer. IEEE Int Symp on Biomed Imaging 2004, 632-635.
60. Fedorov A. 3D Slicer Annotation Image Markup. Available at: http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/Projects:QIN:3D_Slicer_Annotation_Image_Markup. Accessed November 11, 2012.
61. Rubin DL, Korenblum D, Yeluri V, Frederick P, and Herfkens RJ (2010). Semantic Annotation and Image Markup in a commercial PACS workstation. In Scientific Paper, Ninety-Sixth Annual Scientific Meeting of the RSNA, Chicago, IL.
62. Zimmerman SL, Kim W, and Boonn WW (2011). Informatics in radiology: automated structured reporting of imaging findings using the AIM standard and XML. Radiographics 31, 881-887.
63. Hoy MB (2011). HTML5: a new standard for the Web. Med Ref Serv Q 30, 50-55.
64. Mongkolwat P, Channin DS, Kleper V, and Rubin DL (2012). Informatics in radiology: an open-source and open-access cancer biomedical informatics grid annotation and image markup template builder. Radiographics 32, 1223-1232.
65. Langlotz CP (2006). RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 26, 1595-1597.
66. Bruno EJ (2007). SOA, Web services, and RESTful systems: a framework for building RESTful systems. Dr Dobb's Journal 32, 32.
67. Warnock MJ, Toland C, Evans D, Wallace B, and Nagy P (2007). Benefits of using the DCM4CHE DICOM archive. J Digit Imaging 20(suppl 1), 125-129.
68. Bernardini A, Alonzi M, Campioni P, Vecchioli A, and Marano P (2003). IHE: integrating the healthcare enterprise, towards complete integration of healthcare information systems. Rays 28, 83-93.
69. Lipton P, Nagy P, and Sevinc G (2012). Leveraging Internet technologies with DICOM WADO. J Digit Imaging 25, 646-652.
70. Meier W (2003). Exist: an open source native xml database. Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems 2593, 169-183.
71. Abajian AC, Levy M, and Rubin DL (2012). Informatics in radiology: improving clinical work flow through an AIM database: a sample Web-based lesion tracking application. Radiographics 32, 1543-1552.
72. Korenblum D, Rubin D, Napel S, Rodriguez C, and Beaulieu C (2011). Managing biomedical image metadata for search and retrieval of similar images. J Digit Imaging 24, 739-748.
73. Xu J, Greenspan H, Napel S, and Rubin DL (2011). Automated temporal tracking and segmentation of lymphoma on serial CT examinations. Med Phys 38, 5879-5886.
74. Hussein R, Engelmann U, Schroeter A, and Meinzer HP (2004). DICOM structured reporting: part 1. Overview and characteristics. Radiographics 24, 891-896.