Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authordeSouza, N
dc.contributor.authorWinfield, J
dc.contributor.authorWaterton, John C
dc.contributor.authorWeller, A
dc.contributor.authorPapoutsaki, M-V
dc.contributor.authorDoran, S
dc.contributor.authorCollins, D
dc.contributor.authorFournier, L
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, D
dc.contributor.authorChenevert, T
dc.contributor.authorJackson, Alan
dc.contributor.authorBoss, M
dc.contributor.authorTrattnig, S
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Y
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-19T20:44:05Z
dc.date.available2017-10-19T20:44:05Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-27
dc.identifier.citationImplementing diffusion-weighted MRI for body imaging in prospective multicentre trials: current considerations and future perspectives. 2017, Eur Radiolen
dc.identifier.issn1432-1084
dc.identifier.pmid28956113
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00330-017-4972-z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/620605
dc.description.abstractFor body imaging, diffusion-weighted MRI may be used for tumour detection, staging, prognostic information, assessing response and follow-up. Disease detection and staging involve qualitative, subjective assessment of images, whereas for prognosis, progression or response, quantitative evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is required. Validation and qualification of ADC in multicentre trials involves examination of i) technical performance to determine biomarker bias and reproducibility and ii) biological performance to interrogate a specific aspect of biology or to forecast outcome. Unfortunately, the variety of acquisition and analysis methodologies employed at different centres make ADC values non-comparable between them. This invalidates implementation in multicentre trials and limits utility of ADC as a biomarker. This article reviews the factors contributing to ADC variability in terms of data acquisition and analysis. Hardware and software considerations are discussed when implementing standardised protocols across multi-vendor platforms together with methods for quality assurance and quality control. Processes of data collection, archiving, curation, analysis, central reading and handling incidental findings are considered in the conduct of multicentre trials. Data protection and good clinical practice are essential prerequisites. Developing international consensus of procedures is critical to successful validation if ADC is to become a useful biomarker in oncology.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to European radiologyen
dc.titleImplementing diffusion-weighted MRI for body imaging in prospective multicentre trials: current considerations and future perspectives.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK. Nandita.Desouza@icr.ac.ukCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UKManchester Academic Health Sciences Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UKCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UKCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UKCRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UKAssistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou, Radiology Department, Universite Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris Cite, Paris, FranceDuke Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USADepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USAManchester Academic Health Sciences Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKApplied Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, CO, USADepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, AustriaEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Headquarters, Brussels, Belgiumen
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Radiologyen
refterms.dateFOA2018-12-17T15:04:55Z
html.description.abstractFor body imaging, diffusion-weighted MRI may be used for tumour detection, staging, prognostic information, assessing response and follow-up. Disease detection and staging involve qualitative, subjective assessment of images, whereas for prognosis, progression or response, quantitative evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is required. Validation and qualification of ADC in multicentre trials involves examination of i) technical performance to determine biomarker bias and reproducibility and ii) biological performance to interrogate a specific aspect of biology or to forecast outcome. Unfortunately, the variety of acquisition and analysis methodologies employed at different centres make ADC values non-comparable between them. This invalidates implementation in multicentre trials and limits utility of ADC as a biomarker. This article reviews the factors contributing to ADC variability in terms of data acquisition and analysis. Hardware and software considerations are discussed when implementing standardised protocols across multi-vendor platforms together with methods for quality assurance and quality control. Processes of data collection, archiving, curation, analysis, central reading and handling incidental findings are considered in the conduct of multicentre trials. Data protection and good clinical practice are essential prerequisites. Developing international consensus of procedures is critical to successful validation if ADC is to become a useful biomarker in oncology.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
s00330-017-4972-z.pdf
Size:
1.827Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Full text, Open Access article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record