1 / 18

H. Cecil Charles, Ph.D. Director Duke Image Analysis Laboratory Duke University Medical Center

Quantitative Imaging: Protocol Development and Quality Assurance Issues for Medical Imaging in Clinical Trials. H. Cecil Charles, Ph.D. Director Duke Image Analysis Laboratory Duke University Medical Center. Overview. Quantitative Imaging vs: Clinical Imaging Protocol Development Issues

keith
Download Presentation

H. Cecil Charles, Ph.D. Director Duke Image Analysis Laboratory Duke University Medical Center

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quantitative Imaging: Protocol Development and Quality Assurance Issues for Medical Imaging in Clinical Trials H. Cecil Charles, Ph.D. Director Duke Image Analysis Laboratory Duke University Medical Center

  2. Overview • Quantitative Imaging vs: Clinical Imaging • Protocol Development Issues • Centrally Monitored QC/QA in multi-center trials • Central Data Analysis/Archival Issues

  3. What Is Quantitative Imaging (QI) and How Is It Different From Clinical Imaging (CI)?

  4. Visualization of lesions and/or disease Radiologic interpretation Rule-out or rule-in a diagnosis Diagnostic tree/1°,2°,3° diagnosis Determination of tissue characteristics from imaging parameters Algorithm/SOP/scaled interpretation Numeric output Incorporation in hypothesis testing or goal driven evaluation CI QI Effect Monitoring Diagnosis

  5. Is there a use for CI in trials • If imaging is part of the diagnostic inclusion or exclusion criteria, a screening scan may be required • The screening scan may or may not be according to the QI protocol • Subsequent imaging sessions (including a baseline scan) are based on the QI protocol

  6. Organ volumes or Subvolumes Perfusion/Permeability/blood flow Atrophy indices Necrosis/Hypoxia Indices Metabolic Indices (e.g. pH, energetics) Ligand Binding Vascular Indices Examples of QI

  7. ISSUES for QI • Study Protocol Design • Data Quality • Data Format Issues • Data “Cleaning” • Data Registration (serial studies) • Data Analysis • Data Archival

  8. Study Protocol: General • Driven by Study goals and QI Algorithm(s) (Analyses) • Maximize Information Content per unit time • Deterministic Figure of Merit (FOM) • CNR/(unit resolution * unit time) • Patient Comfort/Compliance

  9. Multiple Sites/Platforms • Imaging protocol cross-validation • Rationalize Nomenclature • “Uniform” site training tailored to manufacturer/HW/SW status • Retrain with upgrades if necessary • Centrally monitored protocol compliance (QC)

  10. Data Quality Assessment • SNR/CNR • Artifacts (e.g. Motion) [quantitative criteria: clutter/noise] • Protocol Adherence • Scan Parameters • Schedule • Technical Parameters (e.g. contrast dose and rate) • System Performance • Spatial Fidelity! (esp. in serial studies)

  11. Incoming Data Formats • Native data from multiple manufacturers and multiple S/W releases • Varying Media Formats • MOD’s, DAT(s), CDROM(s) • Varying File Formats • DICOM(s) • Proprietary Formats • ACR/NEMA • “Local” formats (non-commercial PACS)

  12. Data Storage Formats • Imaging Industry “standards” • DICOM (a flexible standard) • Alternate Standards • (e.g. Analyze, TIFF)

  13. Data Cleaning • Prospective QC • Rescan if possible • Minimization of Lost Data • Data Rejection • Quantitative Basis! • Site Notification

  14. Data Registration • Minimize positioning errors in protocol • Use Immobilizers to alleviate motion • REGISTER serial scans

  15. Data Registration • Even with on site training and quality technologists, some misalignment will occur in serial studies • Alignment of the datasets minimizes the impact of this problem

  16. Data Analysis • Prospective Criteria based on needs of study • Optimize FOM and QC criteria to match needs of algorithm • SOP • Replicate analysis to address drift

  17. Data Archival • Driven by needs of sponsor and regulatory agencies • Central Consolidation and Storage • Coordinating Center Archival

  18. Summary • Close Intellectual and technological relationship among the sponsor, imaging site(s) and imaging coordinating center • Ongoing QC/QA • Blinded quantitative data analysis • Regulatory compliance

More Related