Purpose: The aim of this joint EANM/SNMMI/IHPBA procedure guideline is to provide general infor-mation and specific recommendations and considerations on the use of [99mTc]Tc-mebrofenin hepato... Show morePurpose: The aim of this joint EANM/SNMMI/IHPBA procedure guideline is to provide general infor-mation and specific recommendations and considerations on the use of [99mTc]Tc-mebrofenin hepato-biliary scintigraphy (HBS) in the quantitative assessment and risk analysis before surgical intervention, selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) or before and after liver regenerative procedures. Although the gold standard to estimate future liver remnant (FLR) function remains volumetry, the increasing interest in HBS and the continuous request for implementation in major liver centers worldwide, demands standardization.Methods: This guideline concentrates on the endorsement of a standardized protocol for HBS elabo-rates on the clinical indications and implications, considerations, clinical appliance, cut-off values, in-teractions, acquisition, post-processing analysis and interpretation. Referral to the practical guidelines for additional post-processing manual instructions is provided.Conclusion: The increasing interest of major liver centers worldwide in HBS requires guidance for implementation. Standardization facilitates applicability of HBS and promotes global implementation. Inclusion of HBS in standard care is not meant as substitute for volumetry, but rather to complement risk evaluation by identifying suspected and unsuspected high-risk patients prone to develop post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and post-SIRT liver failure. Show less
Ambrosini, V.; Vaz, S.C.; Bidakhvidi, N.A.; Chanchou, M.; Cysouw, M.C.F.; Serani, F.; ... ; Herrmann, K. 2023
Aim: To build and externally validate an [F-18]FDG PET radiomic model to predict overall survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Methods: Two multicentre datasets of... Show moreAim: To build and externally validate an [F-18]FDG PET radiomic model to predict overall survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Methods: Two multicentre datasets of patients with operable HNSCC treated with preoperative afatinib who underwent a baseline and evaluation [F-18]FDG PET/CT scan were included (EORTC: n = 20, Unicancer: n = 34). Tumours were delineated, and radiomic features were extracted. Each cohort served once as a training and once as an external validation set for the prediction of overall survival. Supervised feature selection was performed using variable hunting with variable importance, selecting the top two features. A Cox proportional hazards regression model using selected radiomic features and clinical characteristics was fitted on the training dataset and validated in the external validation set. Model performances are expressed by the concordance index (C-index).Results: In both models, the radiomic model surpassed the clinical model with validation C-indices of 0.69 and 0.79 vs. 0.60 and 0.67, respectively. The model that combined the radiomic features and clinical variables performed best, with validation C-indices of 0.71 and 0.82.Conclusion: Although assessed in two small but independent cohorts, an [F-18]FDG-PET radiomic signature based on the evaluation scan seems promising for the prediction of overall survival for HNSSC treated with preoperative afatinib. The robustness and clinical applicability of this radiomic signature should be assessed in a larger cohort. Show less
Unterrainer, M.; Deroose, C.M.; Herrmann, K.; Moehler, M.; Blomqvist, L.; Cannella, R.; ... ; European Soc Gastrointestinal Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) 2022
Background: Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on... Show moreBackground: Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardised imaging protocol tailored to patients with mCRC. Imaging protocol hetero-geneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging end-points and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging end-points. Patients and methods: Acknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and arti-ficial intelligence tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method. Results: Under the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified. Conclusion: This consensus protocol attempts to promote standardisation and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardisation will increase reproducibility of radiomics and artificial intelligence studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging end-points. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these im-aging standards across recruiting centres. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
DeSouza, N.M.; Lugt, A. van der; Deroose, C.M.; Alberich-Bayarri, A.; Bidaut, L.; Fournier, L.; ... ; European Org Res Treatment Canc 2022
Background Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing... Show moreBackground Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable. Methods A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2-4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds. Results/conclusions Items with >= 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60-74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with <= 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified. Show less
Fournier, L.; Geus-Oei, L.F. de; Regge, D.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; D'Anastasi, M.; Bidaut, L.; ... ; Caramella, C. 2022
Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical... Show moreResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required. Show less
Metastatic tumor deposits in bone marrow elicit differential bone responses that vary with the type of malignancy. This results in either sclerotic, lytic, or mixed bone lesions, which can change... Show moreMetastatic tumor deposits in bone marrow elicit differential bone responses that vary with the type of malignancy. This results in either sclerotic, lytic, or mixed bone lesions, which can change in morphology due to treatment effects and/or secondary bone remodeling. Hence, morphological imaging is regarded unsuitable for response assessment of bone metastases and in the current Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1 (RECIST1.1) guideline bone metastases are deemed unmeasurable. Nevertheless, the advent of functional and molecular imaging modalities such as whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) has improved the ability for follow-up of bone metastases, regardless of their morphology. Both these modalities not only have improved sensitivity for visual detection of bone lesions, but also allow for objective measurements of bone lesion characteristics. WB-MRI provides a global assessment of skeletal metastases and for a one-step "all-organ" approach of metastatic disease. Novel MRI techniques include diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) targeting highly cellular lesions, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for quantitative assessment of bone lesion vascularization, and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combining anatomical and functional sequences. Recommendations for a homogenization of MRI image acquisitions and generalizable response criteria have been developed. For PET, many metabolic and molecular radiotracers are available, some targeting tumor characteristics not confined to cancer type (e.g. F-18-FDG) while other targeted radiotracers target specific molecular characteristics, such as prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands for prostate cancer. Supporting data on quantitative PET analysis regarding repeatability, reproducibility, and harmonization of PET/CT system performance is available. Bone metastases detected on PET and MRI can be quantitatively assessed using validated methodologies, both on a whole-body and individual lesion basis. Both have the advantage of covering not only bone lesions but visceral and nodal lesions as well. Hybrid imaging, combining PET with MRI, may provide complementary parameters on the morphologic, functional, metabolic and molecular level of bone metastases in one examination. For clinical implementation of measuring bone metastases in response assessment using WB-MRI and PET, current RECIST1.1 guidelines need to be adapted. This review summarizes available data and insights into imaging of bone metastases using MRI and PET. Show less
Fournier, L.; Costaridou, L.; Bidaut, L.; Michoux, N.; Lecouvet, F.E.; Geus-Oei, L.F. de; ... ; European Soc Radiology 2021
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... Show moreExisting 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. Show less
