Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: The Application of Advanced Image Processing and Analysis to Clinical and Preclinical Decision Making

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of medical imaging for clinical decision making has been steadily increasing over the last four decades. Recently, there has also been an emphasis on medical imaging for preclinical decision making, i.e., for use in pharamaceutical and medical device development. There is also a drive towards quantification of imaging findings by using quantitative imaging biomarkers, which can improve sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and reproducibility of imaged characteristics used for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. An important component of the discovery, characterization, validation and application of quantitative imaging biomarkers is the extraction of information and meaning from images through image processing and subsequent analysis. However, many advanced image processing and analysis methods are not applied directly to questions of clinical interest, i.e., for diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, which is a consideration that should be closely linked to the development of such algorithms. This article is meant to address these concerns. First, quantitative imaging biomarkers are introduced by providing definitions and concepts. Then, potential applications of advanced image processing and analysis to areas of quantitative imaging biomarker research are described; specifically, research into osteoarthritis (OA), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cancer is presented. Then, challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker research are discussed. Finally, a conceptual framework for integrating clinical and preclinical considerations into the development of quantitative imaging biomarkers and their computer-assisted methods of extraction is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, 2004

  2. Administration USFaD: FDA New Molecular Entities, 2011

  3. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or Stagnation: Critical Path Opportunities Report, 2006

  4. US Food and Drug Administration: Innovation or stagnation: Critical Path Opportunities List, 2006

  5. US Food and Drug Administration: The Sentinel Initiative: National Strategy for Monitoring Medical Product Safety, 2008

  6. Administration USFaD: Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health: A Framework for FDA's Regulatory Science Initiative, 2010

  7. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Available at https://www.trialstransformation.org/. Accessed December 3 2010.

  8. NIH Roadmap. Available at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/. Accessed December 3 2010.

  9. Smith JJ, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH: Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology's future. Radiology 227:633–638, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89-95, 2001

  11. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M: The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., New York, 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. O'Connor JPB, Jackson A, Asselin M-C, Buckley DL, Parker GJM, Jayson GC: Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. The Lancet Oncology 9:766–776, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Altman RD, Gold GE: Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 15:A1–A56, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weir CJ, Walley RJ: Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Statistics in Medicine 25:183–203, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Echt DS, et al: Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med 324:781–788, 1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke LP, Sriram RD, Schilling LB: Imaging as a biomarker: standards for change measurements in therapy workshop summary. Academic Radiology 15:501–530, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morra JH, Zhuowen T, Apostolova LG, Green AE, Toga AW, Thompson PM: Comparison of AdaBoost and support vector machines for detecting Alzheimer's disease through automated hippocampal segmentation. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:30–43, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. US Food and Drug Administration: Critical Path Opportunities Initiated During 2006, 2007

  19. US Food and Drug Administration: Key FDA Critical Path Activities Under Way in 2007, 2007

  20. Buckwalter JA: Orthopaedic Basic Science: Biology and Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2000

  21. Felson DT, et al: Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 133:635–646, 2000

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eckstein F, Mosher T, Hunter D: Imaging of knee osteoarthritis: data beyond the beauty. Curr Opin Rheumatol 19:435–443, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. The Atlas of Standard Radiographs of Arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44 Suppl 4:iv46-iv72, 2005

  24. Eckstein F, Burstein D, Link TM: Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. NMR Biomed 19:822–854, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eckstein F, et al: Proposal for a nomenclature for magnetic resonance imaging based measures of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 14:974–983, 2006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wirth W, Eckstein F: A technique for regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage thickness based on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 27:737–744, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gray ML, Eckstein F, Peterfy C, Dahlberg L, Kim YJ, Sorensen AG: Toward imaging biomarkers for osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res:S175-181, 2004

  28. Peterfy CG, Schneider E, Nevitt M: The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:1433–1441, 2008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fripp J, Crozier S, Warfield SK, Ourselin S: Automatic segmentation and quantitative analysis of the articular cartilages from magnetic resonance images of the knee. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:55-64

  30. Dodin P, Pelletier J, Martel-Pelletier J, Abram F: Automatic human knee cartilage segmentation from 3-D magnetic resonance images. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 57:2699-2711

  31. Yin Y, Zhang X, Williams R, Wu X, Anderson DD, Sonka M: LOGISMOS—layered optimal graph image segmentation of multiple objects and surfaces: cartilage segmentation in the knee joint. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:2023–2037, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Folkesson J, Dam EB, Olsen OF, Pettersen PC, Christiansen C: Segmenting articular cartilage automatically using a voxel classification approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26:106–115, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Williams TG, et al.: Anatomically corresponded regional analysis of cartilage in asymptomatic and osteoarthritic knees by statistical shape modelling of the bone. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:1541-1559

  34. Andreoli TE, Carpenter CCJ, Griggs RC, Benjamin IJ: Andreoli and Carpenter's Cecil Essentials of Medicine. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  35. Holtzman DM, Morris JC, Goate AM: Alzheimer's disease: the challenge of the second century. Sci Transl Med 3:77 sr71, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hampel H, et al: Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: academic, industry and regulatory perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:560–574, 2010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Jack CR, et al: The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27:685–691, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kantarci K, Jack Jr, CR: Quantitative magnetic resonance techniques as surrogate markers of Alzheimer's disease. NeuroRx 1:196–205, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin J, Pentland A, Sclaroff S, Kikinis R: Characterization of neuropathological shape deformations. Pattern analysis and machine intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 20:97–112, 1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Duchesne S, Caroli A, Geroldi C, Barillot C, Frisoni GB, Collins DL: MRI-based automated computer classification of probable AD versus normal controls. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 27:509–520, 2008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gerber S, Tasdizen T, Thomas Fletcher P, Joshi S, Whitaker R: Manifold modeling for brain population analysis. Medical Image Analysis 14:643–653, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lei W, et al: Large deformation diffeomorphism and momentum based hippocampal shape discrimination in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 26:462–470, 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sabuncu MR, Balci SK, Shenton ME, Golland P: Image-driven population analysis through mixture modeling. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:1473–1487, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sabuncu MR, Yeo BTT, Van Leemput K, Fischl B, Golland P: A generative model for image segmentation based on label fusion. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:1714–1729, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Freeborough PA, Fox NC: MR image texture analysis applied to the diagnosis and tracking of Alzheimer's disease. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 17:475–478, 1998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Eisenhauer EA, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247, 2009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Armato 3rd, SG, et al: The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of change-analysis software. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84:448–456, 2008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Larson SM: Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: anatomic and functional biomarkers. J Nucl Med 50:239–249, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Girvin F, Ko JP: Pulmonary nodules: detection, assessment, and CAD. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1057–1069, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang TC, Karayiannis NB: Detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms using wavelets. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 17:498–509, 1998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Jong Kook K, Hyun Wook P: Statistical textural features for detection of microcalcifications in digitized mammograms. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 18:231–238, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Liyang W, Yongyi Y, Nishikawa RM, Yulei J: A study on several machine-learning methods for classification of malignant and benign clustered microcalcifications. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 24:371–380, 2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tofts PS: Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:91–101, 1997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Tofts PS, et al: Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232, 1999

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Armitage P, Behrenbruch C, Brady M, Moore N: Extracting and visualizing physiological parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Medical Image Analysis 9:315–329, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmid VJ, Whitcher B, Padhani AR, Guang-Zhong Y: Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images based on Bayesian P-splines. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 28:789–798, 2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mescam M, Kretowski M, Bezy-Wendling J: Multiscale model of liver DCE-MRI towards a better understanding of tumor complexity. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 29:699–707, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sullivan DC, Gatsonis C: Response to treatment series: part 1 and introduction, measuring tumor response—challenges in the era of molecular medicine. Am J Roentgenol 197:15-17

  59. Yaghmai V, Miller FH, Rezai P, Benson AB, III, Salem R: Response to treatment series: part 2, tumor response assessment—using new and conventional criteria. Am J Roentgenol 197:18-27

  60. Pepe MS, et al: Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:1054–1061, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr. Joseph Yu and Dr. Thomas Best at The Ohio State University for helpful comments and suggestions and Dr. Joanne Lynn and Dr. Catherine Lucey at The Ohio State University College of Medicine for providing funding for the rights to republish Fig. 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, 60 King Ave, Columbus, OH, 43201, USA

    Jeffrey William Prescott

Authors
  1. Jeffrey William Prescott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey William Prescott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prescott, J.W. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: The Application of Advanced Image Processing and Analysis to Clinical and Preclinical Decision Making. J Digit Imaging 26, 97–108 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9465-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9465-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation