Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development

Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.001

Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development

Acad Radiol. 2015 Jan;22(1):25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.001.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, 1161 21st Avenue South, CCC-1121 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2675. Electronic address: richard.abramson@vanderbilt.edu.
² Department of Medical Imaging and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
³ Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, California.
⁴ Department of Radiology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse New York.
⁵ Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
⁶ Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
⁷ Abdominal and Cross-Sectional Interventional Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
⁸ Division of Radiology Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
⁹ Department of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
¹⁰ Department of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
¹¹ Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Abstract

Academic radiology is poised to play an important role in the development and implementation of quantitative imaging (QI) tools. This article, drafted by the Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Quantitative Imaging Task Force, reviews current issues in QI biomarker research. We discuss motivations for advancing QI, define key terms, present a framework for QI biomarker research, and outline challenges in QI biomarker development. We conclude by describing where QI research and development is currently taking place and discussing the paramount role of academic radiology in this rapidly evolving field.

Keywords: Radiology; biomarker development; quantitative imaging.

Publication types

Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Review

MeSH terms

Animals
Biomarkers / analysis*
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / methods*
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques / methods*
Molecular Imaging / methods*
Molecular Probe Techniques*
Molecular Probes*

Substances

Biomarkers
Molecular Probes

Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding