Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing ‘translational gaps’ through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored ‘roadmap’. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

Physiological properties of tumors can be measured both in vivo and noninvasively by diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Although these techniques have been used for more than two decades to study tumor diffusion, perfusion, and/or permeability, the methods and studies on how to reduce measurement error and bias in the derived imaging metrics is still lacking in the literature. This is of paramount importance because the objective is to translate these quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) into clinical trials, and ultimately in clinical practice. Standardization of the image acquisition using appropriate phantoms is the first step from a technical performance standpoint. The next step is to assess whether the imaging metrics have clinical value and meet the requirements for being a QIB as defined by the Radiological Society of North America's Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA). The goal and mission of QIBA and the National Cancer Institute Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) initiatives are to provide technical performance standards (QIBA profiles) and QIN tools for producing reliable QIBs for use in the clinical imaging community. Some of QIBA's development of quantitative diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced QIB profiles has been hampered by the lack of literature for repeatability and reproducibility of the derived QIBs. The available research on this topic is scant and is not in sync with improvements or upgrades in MRI technology over the years. This review focuses on the need for QIBs in oncology applications and emphasizes the importance of the assessment of their reproducibility and repeatability. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e101–e121.

The MRI community is using quantitative mapping techniques to complement qualitative imaging. For quantitative imaging to reach its full potential, it is necessary to analyze measurements across systems and longitudinally. Clinical use of quantitative imaging can be facilitated through adoption and use of a standard system phantom, a calibration/standard reference object, to assess the performance of an MRI machine. The International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine AdHoc Committee on Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance was established in February 2007 to facilitate the expansion of MRI as a mainstream modality for multi‐institutional measurements, including, among other things, multicenter trials. The goal of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee was to provide a framework to ensure that quantitative measures derived from MR data are comparable over time, between subjects, between sites, and between vendors. This paper, written by members of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee, reviews standardization attempts and then details the need, requirements, and implementation plan for a standard system phantom for quantitative MRI. In addition, application‐specific phantoms and implementation of quantitative MRI are reviewed. Magn Reson Med 79:48–61, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Neuroanatomic morphology and the developmental pattern of gray matter and white matter in subjects with neurofibromatosis type 1 differed from in control subjects. Some of these differences are related to the neuropsychological status of the neurofibromatosis type 1 group. We propose that delayed developmental apoptosis results in macrocephaly and a delay in the development of appropriate neuronal connections in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. We further propose that these morphologic delays are related to the cognitive profile of neurofibromatosis type 1.

Of children with neurofibromatosis (NF), 40% have a cognitive or learning impairment. Approximately 60% also have anomalous areas of high signal intensity on T2-weighted brain MRIs. The association of these hyperintensities and neuropsychological status is not fully understood. We administered a battery of neuropsychological tests and a standard clinical MRI to determine the impact of hyperintensity presence, number, and location on cognitive status in 84 children (8 to 16 years) with NF type 1. These children underwent standard clinical MRI using a GE 1.5-tesla scanner (except one child who was examined with a 1.0-tesla scanner). We conducted three types of analyses: Hyperintensity presence or absence.-Scores of children with (55%) and without hyperintensities (45%) were compared using t tests. No statistically significant differences between groups in intellectual functioning or any neuropsychological variable were found. Number of hyperintensities-The number of hyperintensity locations per child ranged from one to five (mean = 2.22). Pearson correlations revealed no significant association between the number of hyperintensities and neuropsychological performance. Location of hyperintensities-In four of the five locations studied, no statistically significant differences were found between scores of children with a hyperintensity in an area and those with one elsewhere. However, mean scores for IQ, Memory, Motor, Distractibility, and Attention domains for children with hyperintensities in the thalamus were significantly lower than scores for those with hyperintensities elsewhere. These results suggest that the simple presence or absence of hyperintensities, or their total number, is not as important as their anatomic location for detecting their relationship with neuropsychological status. Taking location into account, hyperintensities in the cerebral hemispheres, basal ganglia, brainstem, or cerebellum seem to have no impact on neuropsychological functioning, whereas hyperintensities in the thalamus do.

No abstract

No abstract

Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.