Search

International audience; Accumulation of excess iron in the body, or systemic iron overload, results from a variety of causes. The concentration of iron in the liver is linearly related to the total body iron stores and, for this reason, quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) is widely regarded as the best surrogate to assess total body iron. Historically assessed using biopsy, there is a clear need for noninvasive quantitative imaging biomarkers of LIC. MRI is highly sensitive to the presence of tissue iron and has been increasingly adopted as a noninvasive alternative to biopsy for detection, severity grading, and treatment monitoring in patients with known or suspected iron overload. Multiple MRI strategies have been developed in the past 2 decades, based on both gradient-echo and spin-echo imaging, including signal intensity ratio and relaxometry strategies. However, there is a general lack of consensus regarding the appropriate use of these methods. The overall goal of this article is to summarize the current state of the art in the clinical use of MRI to quantify liver iron content and to assess the overall level of evidence of these various methods. Based on this summary, expert consensus panel recommendations on best practices for MRI-based quantification of liver iron are provided.

Abstract Existing quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are associated with known biological tissue characteristics and follow a well-understood path of technical, biological and clinical validation before incorporation into clinical trials. In radiomics, novel data-driven processes extract numerous visually imperceptible statistical features from the imaging data with no a priori assumptions on their correlation with biological processes. The selection of relevant features (radiomic signature) and incorporation into clinical trials therefore requires additional considerations to ensure meaningful imaging endpoints. Also, the number of radiomic features tested means that power calculations would result in sample sizes impossible to achieve within clinical trials. This article examines how the process of standardising and validating data-driven imaging biomarkers differs from those based on biological associations. Radiomic signatures are best developed initially on datasets that represent diversity of acquisition protocols as well as diversity of disease and of normal findings, rather than within clinical trials with standardised and optimised protocols as this would risk the selection of radiomic features being linked to the imaging process rather than the pathology. Normalisation through discretisation and feature harmonisation are essential pre-processing steps. Biological correlation may be performed after the technical and clinical validity of a radiomic signature is established, but is not mandatory. Feature selection may be part of discovery within a radiomics-specific trial or represent exploratory endpoints within an established trial; a previously validated radiomic signature may even be used as a primary/secondary endpoint, particularly if associations are demonstrated with specific biological processes and pathways being targeted within clinical trials. Key Points • Data-driven processes like radiomics risk false discoveries due to high-dimensionality of the dataset compared to sample size, making adequate diversity of the data, cross-validation and external validation essential to mitigate the risks of spurious associations and overfitting. • Use of radiomic signatures within clinical trials requires multistep standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and data mining processes. • Biological correlation may be established after clinical validation but is not mandatory.