Skip to main content

Statistical Considerations for Quantitative Imaging Measures in Clinical Trials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium

Part of the book series: ICSA Book Series in Statistics ((ICSABSS))

  • 639 Accesses

Abstract

Radiological imaging has been used as an integrated part of modern clinical trials for patient selection, safety monitoring, and measuring treatment efficacy . Before we use quantitative measures, also called markers, derived from imaging in trials, we need to establish their scientific relevance (validity), as well as clinical utility and analytic validity. Clinical utility can be demonstrated in saving time and/or cost. Analytic validity can be demonstrated for measurement consistency over time and across participating sites. This chapter discusses two statistical applications in imaging clinical trials related to these utilities. The first example (Sect. 11.2) was motivated by whether to use imaging surrogate marker in phase II oncology trials. The second example (Sect. 11.3) was motivated by monitoring longitudinal performance of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner performance in pediatric trials. They were from my lecture in XV BASS on November 14, 2008, in Sylvania, Georgia, USA, which has not been published elsewhere.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Geys, H., Buyse, M., & Vangeneugden, T. (2006). A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice’s criteria. Statistics in Medicine, 25(2), 205–221.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Engelke, K., & Glüer, C. C. (2006). Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry. Part 1: Errors and diagnosis. Osteoporosis International, 17(9), 1283–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, B. J. (2005). ACRIN—Lessions learned in conducting multi-center trials of imaging and cancer. Cancer Imaging, 5, Spec No A:S97-101. PMID: 16361142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalender, W. A., Felsenberg, D., Genant, H. K., Fischer, M., Dequeker, J., & Reeve, J. (1995). The European Spine Phantom—A tool for standardization and quality control in spinal bone mineral measurements by DXA and QCT. European Journal of Radiology, 20(2), 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keshavan, A., Paul, F., Beyer, M. K., et al. (2016). Power estimestimationatino for non-standardized multisite studies. Neuroimage, 134, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.051. Epub 2016 Apr 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, D., Libber, J., Sanfilippo, J., Yu, H.J., Horvath, B., Miller, C. G., et al. (2016) A DXA whole body composition cross-calibration experience: Evaluation with humans, spine, and whole body phantoms. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 19(2), 220–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Mathur, A. K., Blunt, B. A., Gluer, C. C., Will, A. S., Fuerst, T. P., et al. (1996). Dual X-ray absorptiometry quality control: Comparison of visual examination and process-control charts. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 11(5), 626–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., & Zhao, S. (2015). Statistics used in quality control, quality assurance, and quality improvement in radiological studies. In Y. Lu, J. Fang, L. Tian, & H. Jin (Eds.), Advanced medical statistics (pp. 103–160). New York: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Zhao, S., Fan, B., & Shepherd, J. (2006). Simultaneous process control charts for BMD, BMC, and Area in longitudinal quality control of DXA scanners. In 15th International Bone Densitometry Workshop, Kyoto, Japan, Oct 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Zhao, S., Fan, B., & Shepherd, J. (2007) A new CUSUM method for simultaneous quality control of BMD, BMC, and Area for DXA scanners. In 29th Annual Meeting of American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mongomery, D. C. (2012). Introduction to statistical quality control (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Njeh, C. F., Richards, A., Boivin, C. M., Hans, D., Fuerst, T., & Genant, H. (1999). Factors influencing the speed of sound through the proximal phalanges. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 2(3), 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • No authors listed. (1948). STREPTOMYCIN treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. British Medical Journal, 2, 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, R. L. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine, 8, 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, R. N., & Ransdell, B. (2010). Statistical process control for heath care quality improvement using SAS/QRobert N. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzkin, A. (2000). Intermediate markers as surrogate endpoints in cancer research. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 14(4), 887–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. A., & Lu, Y. (2007). A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 10(3), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. M. K., & Banerjee, A. K. (2013). History of radiology: Oxford medical history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q., et al. (2010). A statistical method (cross-validation) for bone loss region detection after spaceflight. Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 33(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-010-0024-6. Epub 2010 Jul 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to make acknowledgment of contributions of my colleagues and funding supports. The bivariate QC was a joint work by Drs. John Shepherd, Shoujun Zhao, and Bo Fan at the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco. That part of work was supported by a grant from CDC 200-2005-11219 (PI: Dr. Shepherd). The first part of utility of surrogate endpoints was supported by a grant from NIH R01 EB004079-01 (PI: Lu). The work was performed when author worked at the University of California, San Francisco.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying Lu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lu, Y. (2018). Statistical Considerations for Quantitative Imaging Measures in Clinical Trials. In: Peace, K., Chen, DG., Menon, S. (eds) Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium . ICSA Book Series in Statistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7820-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics