Browsing by Author "Schwartz, Lawrence H"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Do Radiologists Have Stage Fright? Tumor Staging and How We Can Add Value to the Care of Patients with Cancer.(Radiology, 2016-01) Glastonbury, Christine M; Bhosale, Priya R; Choyke, Peter L; D'Orsi, Carl J; Erasmus, Jeremy J; Gill, Ritu R; Mukherji, Suresh K; Panicek, David M; Schwartz, Lawrence H; Subramaniam, Rathan M; Sullivan, Daniel CItem Open Access Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.(Radiology, 2011-06) Buckler, Andrew J; Bresolin, Linda; Dunnick, N Reed; Sullivan, Daniel C; Aerts, Hugo JWL; Bendriem, Bernard; Bendtsen, Claus; Boellaard, Ronald; Boone, John M; Cole, Patricia E; Conklin, James J; Dorfman, Gary S; Douglas, Pamela S; Eidsaunet, Willy; Elsinger, Cathy; Frank, Richard A; Gatsonis, Constantine; Giger, Maryellen L; Gupta, Sandeep N; Gustafson, David; Hoekstra, Otto S; Jackson, Edward F; Karam, Lisa; Kelloff, Gary J; Kinahan, Paul E; McLennan, Geoffrey; Miller, Colin G; Mozley, P David; Muller, Keith E; Patt, Rick; Raunig, David; Rosen, Mark; Rupani, Haren; Schwartz, Lawrence H; Siegel, Barry A; Sorensen, A Gregory; Wahl, Richard L; Waterton, John C; Wolf, Walter; Zahlmann, Gudrun; Zimmerman, BrianQuantitative imaging biomarkers could speed the development of new treatments for unmet medical needs and improve routine clinical care. However, it is not clear how the various regulatory and nonregulatory (eg, reimbursement) processes (often referred to as pathways) relate, nor is it clear which data need to be collected to support these different pathways most efficiently, given the time- and cost-intensive nature of doing so. The purpose of this article is to describe current thinking regarding these pathways emerging from diverse stakeholders interested and active in the definition, validation, and qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers and to propose processes to facilitate the development and use of quantitative imaging biomarkers. A flexible framework is described that may be adapted for each imaging application, providing mechanisms that can be used to develop, assess, and evaluate relevant biomarkers. From this framework, processes can be mapped that would be applicable to both imaging product development and to quantitative imaging biomarker development aimed at increasing the effectiveness and availability of quantitative imaging.http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100800/-/DC1.Item Open Access The imaging viewpoint: how imaging affects determination of progression-free survival.(Clin Cancer Res, 2013-05-15) Sullivan, Daniel Carl; Schwartz, Lawrence H; Zhao, BinshengTumor measurements on computed tomgoraphic or MRI scans and/or the appearance of new lesions on any of a variety of imaging studies including positron emission tomographic scans are key determinants for assessing progression-free survival as an endpoint in many clinical trials of therapies for solid tumors. Test-retest tumor measurement reproducibility may vary considerably across serial scans on the same patient unless rigorous attention is paid to standardization of image acquisition parameters and unless measurements are made by trained, experienced observers using validated objective methods. Target lesion selection also must be done with care to choose lesions that are or will be reproducibly measurable. Likewise, new lesions will be missed or misinterpreted on follow-up imaging studies unless those imaging studies are obtained using techniques suitable for detecting early, small lesions. Reader variability is clearly a major component of the problem. The increasing availability of semiautomatic image processing algorithms will help ameliorate that issue. In addition, an array of internationally accepted guidelines, standards, and accreditation programs now exist to help address these problems.