A Collaborative Enterprise for Multi-Stakeholder Participation in the Advancement of Quantitative Imaging

References

• 1 Hua X, Lee S, Yanovsky I, et al.. Optimizing power to track brain degeneration in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment with tensor-based morphometry: an ADNI study of 515 subjects. Neuroimage 2009;48(4):668–681.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2 van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, et al.. Management of lung cancer nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009;361(23):2221–2229.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3 Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50(suppl 1):122S–150S.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Bhooshan N, Giger ML, Jansen SA, Li H, Lan L, Newstead GM. Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology 2010;254(3):680–690.
  Google Scholar
• 5 Fuleihan GE, Testa MA, Angell JE, Porrino N, Leboff MS. Reproducibility of DXA absorptiometry: a model for bone loss estimates. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10(7):1004–1014.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Woodcock J, Woosley R. The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 2008;59:1–12.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kelloff GJ, Sullivan DC, Baker H, et al.. Workshop on imaging science development for cancer prevention and preemption. Cancer Biomark 2007;3(1):1–33.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al.. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):290–299.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9 MassDevice. Eye on the FDA. A semi-annual report on the Food & Drug Administration’s 510(k) clearance process. http://www.massdevice.com/reports/eye-fda. Published October 29, 2009. Accessed November 11, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 10 Foreman CL, Sackner-Bernstein J. CDRH Task Force Reports: 510(k) devices process review and new science in regulatory decision making. Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association, Washington, DC, June 14, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 11 Nields MW. FDA & digital mammography: why has FDA required full field digital mammography systems to be regulated as potentially dangerous devices for more than 10 years? Acad Radiol 2010;17(5):652–657.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process. http://www.iom.edu/Activities/PublicHealth/510KProcess.aspx. Accessed June 21, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 13 Sullivan DH. Issues in FDA approval of imaging agents, as delivered at the FDA-ANH Nanotechnology Initiative (FANTI) meeting held on March 10-12th, 2008 in Houston, Texas, breakout #2. http://www.nanohealthalliance.org/fda-anh-program-2. Accessed July 11, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 14 Buckler AJ, Kelloff GJ, Sullivan DC, et al.. Quantitative imaging test validation and quantitative imaging biomarker qualification: inter-related but distinct activities. Radiology [in press].
  Google Scholar
• 15 Jacobson JW. Performance standards reporting requirements for essential assays in clinical trials, http://www.cancerdiagnosis.nci.nih.gov/pdf/PACCT_Assay_Standards_Document.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 16 Eaton Rthe Biomarkers Taskforce. Why QIBA is a good thing for radiology in general, and the imaging manufacturers in particular. MITA white paper 2009. Presented at the 95th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Ill, November 29 to December 4, 2009.
  Google Scholar
• 17 Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J. Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):195–197.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18 de Ryk J, Namati E, Weydert J, Thiesse J, McLennan G. New imaging approaches for understanding lung cancer response to treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84(4):517–522. [Published correction appears in Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84(6):754.].
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19 Clarke L, Schilling LB, Sriram RD. Imaging as a biomarker: standards for change measurements in therapy workshop summary. Acad Radiol 2008;15(4):501–530.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20 Meyer CR, Armato SG, Fenimore CP, et al.. Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):198–210.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21 Jackson E, Barboriak DP, Bidaut LM, Meyer CR. Magnetic resonance assessment of response to therapy: tumor change measurement, truth data and error sources. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):211–215.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22 McNitt-Gray MF, Bidaut LM, Armato SG, et al.. Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):216–222.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23 Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Wanner-Roybal M, et al.. PET/CT assessment of response to therapy: tumor change measurement, truth data, and error. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):223–230.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 McLennan G, Clarke L, Hohl RJ. Imaging as a biomarker for therapy response: cancer as a prototype for the creation of research resources. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84(4):433–436.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Armato SG, Meyer CR, Mcnitt-Gray MF, 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 2008;84(4):448–456.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26 Petrick N, Brown DG, Suleiman O, Myers KJ. Imaging as a tumor biomarker in oncology drug trials for lung cancer: the FDA perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84(4):523–525.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27 Gavrielides MA, Kinnard LM, Myers KJ, Petrick N. Noncalcified lung nodules: volumetric assessment with thoracic CT. Radiology 2009;251(1):26–37.
  Google Scholar
• 28 NIST conference proceeding. http://www.mel.nist.gov/msidlibrary/doc/NISTIR_7434.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 29 RSNA initiatives involved with quantitative imaging. http://www.rsna.org/research/qiba.cfm. Accessed June 19, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 30 Buckler AJ, Mozley PD, Schwartz L, et al.. Volumetric CT in lung cancer: an example for the qualification of imaging as a biomarker. Acad Radiol 2010;17(1):107–115.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31 Buckler AJ. A procedural template for the qualification of imaging as a biomarker, using volumetric CT as an example. Presented at the IEEE Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition Workshop, Washington, DC, October 14–16, 2009.
  Google Scholar
• 32 Home page for “Toward Quantitative Imaging” initiative. http://www.rsna.org/Research/TQI/index.cfm. Accessed June 21, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 33 Mills G. Imaging biomarkers and surrogates: the evolving regulatory lexicon. J Nucl Med 2008;49(6):34N–35N.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34 Goodsaid FM, Frueh FW, Mattes W. The Predictive Safety Testing Consortium: a synthesis of the goals, challenges and accomplishments of the Critical Path. Drug Discov Today Technol 2007;4(2):47–50.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35 FDA informational material. http://www.nationalregulatoryagency.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketApprovalPMA/ucm142714.htm. Accessed January 5, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 36 NEMA/MITA public web material. http://www.nema.org/prod/med/. Accessed February 15, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 37 Pharmaceutical manufacturers organization. http://www.phrma.org/. Accessed February 15, 2010.
  Google Scholar
• 38 Croft BY. NCI Cancer Imaging Program update. J Nucl Med 2008;49(6):40N–42N.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39 Sanhai W. Strategies to engage industry. J Nucl Med 2008;49(6):32N–34N.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar