Search

Evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD) using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has seen a paradigm shift in the last decade. Evidence increasingly supports the clinical utility of CCTA across various stages of CAD, from the detection of early subclinical disease to the assessment of acute chest pain. Additionally, CCTA can be used to noninvasively quantify plaque burden and identify high-risk plaque, aiding in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. This is especially important in the evaluation of CAD in immune-driven conditions with increased cardiovascular disease prevalence. Emerging applications of CCTA based on hemodynamic indices and plaque characterization may provide personalized risk assessment, affect disease detection, and further guide therapy. This review provides an update on the evidence, clinical applications, and emerging technologies surrounding CCTA as highlighted at the 2019 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute CCTA Summit.

Rationale and objectivesTumor volume change has potential as a biomarker for diagnosis, therapy planning, and treatment response. Precision was evaluated and compared among semiautomated lung tumor volume measurement algorithms from clinical thoracic computed tomography data sets. The results inform approaches and testing requirements for establishing conformance with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) Computed Tomography Volumetry Profile.Materials and methodsIndustry and academic groups participated in a challenge study. Intra-algorithm repeatability and inter-algorithm reproducibility were estimated. Relative magnitudes of various sources of variability were estimated using a linear mixed effects model. Segmentation boundaries were compared to provide a basis on which to optimize algorithm performance for developers.ResultsIntra-algorithm repeatability ranged from 13% (best performing) to 100% (least performing), with most algorithms demonstrating improved repeatability as the tumor size increased. Inter-algorithm reproducibility was determined in three partitions and was found to be 58% for the four best performing groups, 70% for the set of groups meeting repeatability requirements, and 84% when all groups but the least performer were included. The best performing partition performed markedly better on tumors with equivalent diameters greater than 40 mm. Larger tumors benefitted by human editing but smaller tumors did not. One-fifth to one-half of the total variability came from sources independent of the algorithms. Segmentation boundaries differed substantially, not ony in overall volume but also in detail.ConclusionsNine of the 12 participating algorithms pass precision requirements similar to what is indicated in the QIBA Profile, with the caveat that the present study was not designed to explicitly evaluate algorithm profile conformance. Change in tumor volume can be measured with confidence to within ±14% using any of these nine algorithms on tumor sizes greater than 10 mm. No partition of the algorithms was able to meet the QIBA requirements for interchangeability down to 10 mm, although the partition comprising best performing algorithms did meet this requirement for a tumor size of greater than approximately 40 mm.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) is a multidisciplinary consortium sponsored by the RSNA to define processes that enable the implementation and advancement of quantitative imaging methods described in a QIBA profile document that outlines the process to reliably and accurately measure imaging features. A QIBA profile includes factors such as technical (product-specific) standards, user activities, and relationship to a clinically meaningful metric, such as with nodule measurement in the course of CT screening for lung cancer. In this report, the authors describe how the QIBA approach is being applied to the measurement of small pulmonary nodules such as those found during low-dose CT-based lung cancer screening. All sources of variance with imaging measurement were defined for this process. Through a process of experimentation, literature review, and assembly of expert opinion, the strongest evidence was used to define how to best implement each step in the imaging acquisition and evaluation process. This systematic approach to implementing a quantitative imaging biomarker with standardized specifications for image acquisition and postprocessing for a specific quantitative measurement of a pulmonary nodule results in consistent performance characteristics of the measurement (eg, bias and variance). Implementation of the QIBA small nodule profile may allow more efficient and effective clinical management of the diagnostic workup of individuals found to have suspicious pulmonary nodules in the course of lung cancer screening evaluation.

PurposeTo determine the variability of lesion size measurements in computed tomography data sets of patients imaged under a "no change" ("coffee break") condition and to determine the impact of two reading paradigms on measurement variability.Method and materialsUsing data sets from 32 non-small cell lung cancer patients scanned twice within 15 minutes ("no change"), measurements were performed by five radiologists in two phases: (1) independent reading of each computed tomography dataset (timepoint): (2) a locked, sequential reading of datasets. Readers performed measurements using several sizing methods, including one-dimensional (1D) longest in-slice dimension and 3D semi-automated segmented volume. Change in size was estimated by comparing measurements performed on both timepoints for the same lesion, for each reader and each measurement method. For each reading paradigm, results were pooled across lesions, across readers, and across both readers and lesions, for each measurement method.ResultsThe mean percent difference (±SD) when pooled across both readers and lesions for 1D and 3D measurements extracted from contours was 2.8 ± 22.2% and 23.4 ± 105.0%, respectively, for the independent reads. For the locked, sequential reads, the mean percent differences (±SD) reduced to 2.52 ± 14.2% and 7.4 ± 44.2% for the 1D and 3D measurements, respectively.ConclusionEven under a "no change" condition between scans, there is variation in lesion size measurements due to repeat scans and variations in reader, lesion, and measurement method. This variation is reduced when using a locked, sequential reading paradigm compared to an independent reading paradigm.

Rationale and objectivesTo estimate and statistically compare the bias and variance of radiologists measuring the size of spherical and complex synthetic nodules.Materials and methodsThis study did not require the institutional review board approval. Six radiologists estimated the size of 10 synthetic nodules embedded within an anthropomorphic thorax phantom from computed tomography scans at 0.8- and 5-mm slice thicknesses. The readers measured the nodule size using unidimensional (1D) longest in-slice dimension, bidimensional (2D) area from longest in-slice and longest perpendicular dimension, and three-dimensional (3D) semiautomated volume. Intercomparisons of bias (difference between average and true size) and variance among methods were performed after converting the 2D and 3D estimates to a compatible 1D scale.ResultsThe relative biases of radiologists with the 3D tool were -1.8%, -0.4%, -0.7%, -0.4%, and -1.6% for 10-mm spherical, 20-mm spherical, 20-mm elliptical, 10-mm lobulated, and 10-mm spiculated nodules compared to 1.4%, -0.1%, -26.5%, -7.8%, and -39.8% for 1D. The three-dimensional measurements were significantly less biased than 1D for elliptical, lobulated, and spiculated nodules. The relative standard deviations for 3D were 7.5%, 3.9%, 3.6%, 9.7%, and 8.3% compared to 5.7%, 2.6%, 20.3%, 5.3%, and 16.4% for 1D. Unidimensional sizing was significantly less variable than 3D for the lobulated nodule and significantly more variable for the ellipsoid and spiculated nodules. Three-dimensional bias and variability were smaller for thin 0.8-mm slice data compared to thick 5.0-mm data.ConclusionsThe study shows that radiologist-controlled 3D volumetric lesion sizing can not only achieve smaller bias but also achieve similar or smaller variability compared to 1D sizing, especially for complex lesion shapes.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers are being used increasingly in medicine to diagnose and monitor patients’ disease. The computer algorithms that measure quantitative imaging biomarkers have different technical performance characteristics. In this paper we illustrate the appropriate statistical methods for assessing and comparing the bias, precision, and agreement of computer algorithms. We use data from three studies of pulmonary nodules. The first study is a small phantom study used to illustrate metrics for assessing repeatability. The second study is a large phantom study allowing assessment of four algorithms’ bias and reproducibility for measuring tumor volume and the change in tumor volume. The third study is a small clinical study of patients whose tumors were measured on two occasions. This study allows a direct assessment of six algorithms’ performance for measuring tumor change. With these three examples we compare and contrast study designs and performance metrics, and we illustrate the advantages and limitations of various common statistical methods for quantitative imaging biomarker studies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Medical imaging serves many roles in patient care and the drug approval process, including assessing treatment response and guiding treatment decisions. These roles often involve a quantitative imaging biomarker, an objectively measured characteristic of the underlying anatomic structure or biochemical process derived from medical images. Before a quantitative imaging biomarker is accepted for use in such roles, the imaging procedure to acquire it must undergo evaluation of its technical performance, which entails assessment of performance metrics such as repeatability and reproducibility of the quantitative imaging biomarker. Ideally, this evaluation will involve quantitative summaries of results from multiple studies to overcome limitations due to the typically small sample sizes of technical performance studies and/or to include a broader range of clinical settings and patient populations. This paper is a review of meta-analysis procedures for such an evaluation, including identification of suitable studies, statistical methodology to evaluate and summarize the performance metrics, and complete and transparent reporting of the results. This review addresses challenges typical of meta-analyses of technical performance, particularly small study sizes, which often causes violations of assumptions underlying standard meta-analysis techniques. Alternative approaches to address these difficulties are also presented; simulation studies indicate that they outperform standard techniques when some studies are small. The meta-analysis procedures presented are also applied to actual [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) test–retest repeatability data for illustrative purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]