Search

Medical imaging has seen substantial and rapid technical advances during the past decade, including advances in image acquisition devices, processing and analysis software, and agents to enhance specificity. Traditionally, medical imaging has defined anatomy, but increasingly newer, more advanced, imaging technologies provide biochemical and physiologic information based on both static and dynamic modalities. These advanced technologies are important not only for detecting disease but for characterizing and assessing change of disease with time or therapy. Because of the rapidity of these advances, research to determine the utility of quantitative imaging in either clinical research or clinical practice has not had time to mature. Methods to appropriately develop, assess, regulate, and reimburse must be established for these advanced technologies. Efficient and methodical processes that meet the needs of stakeholders in the biomedical research community, therapeutics developers, and health care delivery enterprises will ultimately benefit individual patients. To help address this, the authors formed a collaborative program-the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. This program draws from the very successful precedent set by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise effort but is adapted to the needs of imaging science. Strategic guidance supporting the development, qualification, and deployment of quantitative imaging biomarkers will lead to improved standardization of imaging tests, proof of imaging test performance, and greater use of imaging to predict the biologic behavior of tissue and monitor therapy response. These, in turn, confer value to corporate stakeholders, providing incentives to bring new and innovative products to market.

To retrospectively compare three dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (dynamic MR imaging) analytic methods to determine the parameter or combination of parameters most strongly associated with changes in tumor microvasculature during treatment with bevacizumab alone and bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with the institutional review board of the National Cancer Institute and was compliant with the Privacy Act of 1974. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients with inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer were treated with one cycle of bevacizumab alone (cycle 1) followed by six cycles of combination bevacizumab and chemotherapy (cycles 2-7). Serial dynamic MR images were obtained, and the kinetic parameters measured by using three dynamic analytic MR methods (heuristic, Brix, and general kinetic models) and two region-of-interest strategies were compared by using two-sided statistical tests. A P value of .01 was required for significance. RESULTS: In 19 patients, with use of a whole-tumor region of interest, the authors observed a significant decrease in the median values of three parameters measured from baseline to cycle 1: forward transfer rate constant (Ktrans) (-34% relative change, P=.003), backflow compartmental rate constant extravascular and extracellular to plasma (Kep) (-15% relative change, P