Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548282›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2020

Multisite Technical and Clinical Performance Evaluation of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers from 3D FDG PET Segmentations of Head and Neck Cancer Images.

Brian J Smith, John M Buatti, Christian Bauer, Ethan J Ulrich, Payam Ahmadvand, Mikalai M Budzevich, Robert J Gillies, Dmitry Goldgof, Milan Grkovski, Ghassan Hamarneh and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Brian J SmithDepartments of Biostatistics.
John M BuattiRadiation Oncology; and.
Christian BauerElectrical and Computer Engineering.
Ethan J UlrichElectrical and Computer Engineering.
Payam AhmadvandSchool of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Mikalai M BudzevichH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Department of Cancer Physiology, FL.
Robert J GilliesH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Department of Cancer Physiology, FL.
Dmitry GoldgofDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Florida, FL.
Milan GrkovskiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Ghassan HamarnehSchool of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Paul E KinahanDepartment of Radiology, The University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
John P MuziDepartment of Radiology, The University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Mark MuziDepartment of Radiology, The University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Charles M LaymonDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
James M MountzDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Sadek NehmehDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, NY; and.
Matthew J OborskiDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Binsheng ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
John J SunderlandDepartment of Radiology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Reinhard R BeichelElectrical and Computer Engineering.
University of Iowa · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Washington Medical Center · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USSimon Fraser University · CAColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USCornell University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRadiation Oncology Associates · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Jon C.D. Houtman · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
The University of Iowa Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR002537 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI HANSEN, MARLAN R, WINOKUR, PATRICIA · 2018 to 2022
$20.0M
Graph-Based Medical Image Segmentation in 3D and 4DR01EB004640 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI BUATTI, JOHN M, SONKA, MILAN · 2006 to 2022
$6.1M
Advanced PET/CT Imaging for Improving Clinical TrialsU01CA148131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KINAHAN, PAUL E., LINDEN, HANNAH M · 2010 to 2019
$6.0M
Quantitative Imaging to Assess Response in Cancer Therapy TrialsU01CA140206 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI BUATTI, JOHN M, CASAVANT, THOMAS L. · 2010 to 2019
$5.8M
Quantitative Image Informatics for Cancer Research (QIICR)U24CA180918 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI FEDOROV, ANDRIY, KIKINIS, RON · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
Core Laboratory for Advanced PET and MRI image analysisR50CA211270 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Mark Muzi · 2017 to 2026
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002537NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA086862NCI NIH HHS R50 CA211270NCI NIH HHS U01 CA140206NCI NIH HHS U01 CA148131NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180918NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB004640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) provide medical image-derived intensity, texture, shape, and size features that may help characterize cancerous tumors and predict clinical outcomes. Successful clinical translation of QIBs depends on the robustness of their measurements. Biomarkers derived from positron emission tomography images are prone to measurement errors owing to differences in image processing factors such as the tumor segmentation method used to define volumes of interest over which to calculate QIBs. We illustrate a new Bayesian statistical approach to characterize the robustness of QIBs to different processing factors. Study data consist of 22 QIBs measured on 47 head and neck tumors in 10 positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans segmented manually and with semiautomated methods used by 7 institutional members of the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network. QIB performance is estimated and compared across institutions with respect to measurement errors and power to recover statistical associations with clinical outcomes. Analysis findings summarize the performance impact of different segmentation methods used by Quantitative Imaging Network members. Robustness of some advanced biomarkers was found to be similar to conventional markers, such as maximum standardized uptake value. Such similarities support current pursuits to better characterize disease and predict outcomes by developing QIBs that use more imaging information and are robust to different processing factors. Nevertheless, to ensure reproducibility of QIB measurements and measures of association with clinical outcomes, errors owing to segmentation methods need to be reduced.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Head and Neck NeoplasmsPositron-Emission TomographyBayes TheoremBiomarkers, TumorHumansReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedBiomarkers, TumorFluorodeoxyglucose F18FDG PEThead and neck cancermulti-site performance analysisradiomicssegmentation

Identifiers

PMID32548282
PMCPMC7289247
OpenAlexW3033672396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.