Imagerie TDM et IRM de l’angiogenèse tumorale

Bazelaire, Cédric de; Calmon, Raphaël; Chapellier, Marion; Pluvinage, A.; Frija, J.; Kerviler, É. de

doi:10.1684/bdc.2010.0961

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Necrosis decreases tissue cellularity and increases water content manifesting as an increase in T2 [ 1 ], a reduction in glucose uptake [ 2 ] and an increase in elasticity [ 3 ]. Perfusion imaging detects and characterises hypervascular lesions such as cancers, or monitors the effect of anti-angiogenic drugs [ 4 , 5 ]. Implementation of QIBs into clinical trials follows a well-defined path from discovery, through a process of technical and biological validation, to implementation and clinical validation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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. Key Points • Data-driven processes like radiomics risk false discoveries due to high-dimensionality of the dataset compared to sample size, making adequate diversity of the data, cross-validation and external validation essential to mitigate the risks of spurious associations and overfitting. • Use of radiomic signatures within clinical trials requires multistep standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and data mining processes. • Biological correlation may be established after clinical validation but is not mandatory.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the advantages of MRI over CT, in clinical practice, CT and MRI perfusion have a similar diagnostic performance [59,60]. The main advantage of CT over MRI is related to the linear association between iodine concentration and CT number, which makes density-related perfusion parameters (i.e., regional tumor perfusion and vascular permeability) easier to calculate and compare with MRI [6,61,62]. However, radiation dose remains an issue with CT perfusion; consequently, this technique is better suited for extremities, where it can be conducted with effective doses under 0.5 mSv [5,16,17].…”

Section: Perfusion Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%