BackgroundAlthough CT perfusion (CTP) is often incorporated in acute stroke workflows, it remains largely unclear what the associated costs and health implications are in the long run of CTP-based... Show moreBackgroundAlthough CT perfusion (CTP) is often incorporated in acute stroke workflows, it remains largely unclear what the associated costs and health implications are in the long run of CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset with a large vessel occlusion.MethodsPatients with a large vessel occlusion were included from a Dutch nationwide cohort (n=703) if CTP imaging was performed before EVT within 6 hours after stroke onset. Simulated cost and health effects during 5 and 10 years follow-up were compared between CTP based patient selection for EVT and providing EVT to all patients. Outcome measures were the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay of euro80 000 per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), difference in costs from a healthcare payer perspective (Delta Costs) and quality-adjusted life years (Delta QALY) per 1000 patients for 1000 model iterations as outcomes.ResultsCompared with treating all patients, CTP-based selection for EVT at the optimised ischaemic core volume (ICV >= 110 mL) or core-penumbra mismatch ratio (MMR <= 1.4) thresholds resulted in losses of health (median Delta QALYs for ICV >= 110 mL: -3.3 (IQR: -5.9 to -1.1), for MMR <= 1.4: 0.0 (IQR: -1.3 to 0.0)) with median Delta Costs for ICV >= 110 mL of -euro348 966 (IQR: -euro712 406 to -euro51 158) and for MMR <= 1.4 of euro266 513 (IQR: euro229 403 to euro380 110)) per 1000 patients. Sensitivity analyses did not yield any scenarios for CTP-based selection of patients for EVT that were cost-effective for improving health, including patients aged >= 80 yearsConclusionIn EVT-eligible patients presenting within 6 hours after symptom onset, excluding patients based on CTP parameters was not cost-effective and could potentially harm patients. Show less
BackgroundOwing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or... Show moreBackgroundOwing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or conflicting evidence.MethodsDuring the first Consensus Conference on the State of Science in Sarcoma (CSSS), we used a modified Delphi process to identify areas of controversy in the field of sarcoma, to name topics with limited evidence-based data in which a scientific and knowledge gap may remain and a consensus statement will help to guide patient management. We determined scientific questions which need to be addressed in the future in order to generate evidence and to inform physicians and caregivers in daily clinical practice in order to improve the outcomes of patients with sarcoma.We conducted a vote on STS key questions and controversies prior to the CSSS meeting, which took place in May 2022.ResultsSixty-two European sarcoma experts participated in the survey.Sixteen strong consensus (≥95%) items were identified by the experts, as well as 30 items with a ≥75% consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic questions. Ultimately, many controversy topics remained without consensus.ConclusionsIn this manuscript, we summarise the voting results and the discussion during the CSSS meeting. Future scientific questions, priorities for clinical trials, registries, quality assurance, and action by stakeholders are proposed. Platforms and partnerships can support innovative approaches to improve management and clinical research in STS. 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
Introduction: Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) is variably considered to assess eligibility for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic (AIS) stroke patients. Although CTP is... Show moreIntroduction: Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) is variably considered to assess eligibility for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic (AIS) stroke patients. Although CTP is recommended for patient selection in later (6-24 h) time window, it is currently not recommended in the earlier (0-6 h) time window and the costs and health effects of including CTP for EVT selection remain unknown. We aim to estimate the costs and health effects of using CTP for EVT selection in AIS patients compared to conventional selection. Patients and methods: CLEOPATRA is a healthcare evaluation study using clinical and imaging data from multiple, prospective EVT trials and registries in both the earlier and later time windows. To study the long-term health and cost effects, we will construct a ("Markov") health state transition model simulating the clinical outcome over a 5-year follow-up period for CTP-based and conventional selection for EVT. Clinical data acquired within the current study and estimates from the literature will be used as input for probabilities of events, costs, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) per modified Rankin Scale (mRS) subscore. Primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis will be the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) in terms of costs per QALY gained over the simulated follow-up period. Study outcomes: Outcome measures will be reported as cumulative values over a 5-year follow-up period. Discussion: This study will provide preliminary insight into costs and health effects of including CTP in the selection for EVT for AIS patients, presenting between 0 and 24 h after time last known well. The results may be used to develop recommendations and inform further implementation projects and studies. 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
Voorst, H. van; Kunz, W.G.; Berg, L.A. van den; Kappelhof, M.; Pinckaers, F.M.E.; Goyal, M.; ... ; Majoie, C.B.L.M. 2021
Background The effectiveness of endovascular treatment (EVT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke severely depends on time to treatment. However, it remains unclear what the value of faster... Show moreBackground The effectiveness of endovascular treatment (EVT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke severely depends on time to treatment. However, it remains unclear what the value of faster treatment is in the years after index stroke. The aim of this study was to quantify the value of faster EVT in terms of health and healthcare costs for the Dutch LVO stroke population. Methods A Markov model was used to simulate 5-year follow-up functional outcome, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), of 69-year-old LVO patients. Post-treatment mRS was extracted from the MR CLEAN Registry (n=2892): costs per unit of time and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) per mRS sub-score were retrieved from follow-up data of the MR CLEAN trial (n=500). Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) at a willingness to pay of euro80 000 per QALY was reported as primary outcome, and secondary outcome measures were days of disability-free life gained and costs. Results EVT administered 1 min faster resulted in a median NMB of euro309 (IQR: 226;389), 1.3 days of additional disability-free life (IQR: 1.0;1.6), while cumulative costs remained largely unchanged (median: -euro15, IQR: -65;33) over a 5-year follow-up period. As costs over the follow-up period remained stable while QALYs decreased with longer time to treatment, which this results in a near-linear decrease of NMB. Since patients with faster EVT lived longer, they incurred more healthcare costs. Conclusion One-minute faster EVT increases QALYs while cumulative costs remain largely unaffected. Therefore, faster EVT provides better value of care at no extra healthcare costs. 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
