Translating radiological research into practice — from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points • Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. • Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. • Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach.</p

Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach

Translating radiological research into practice — from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points • Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. • Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. • Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach.</p

ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update

An update of the 2010 published ESUR recommendations of MRI of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass integrating functional techniques is provided. An algorithmic approach using sagittal T2 and a set of transaxial T1 and T2WI allows categorization of adnexal masses in one of the following three types according to its predominant signal characteristics. T1 'bright' masses due to fat or blood content can be simply and effectively determined using a combination of T1W, T2W and FST1W imaging. When there is concern for a solid component within such a mass, it requires additional assessment as for a complex cystic or cystic-solid mass. For low T2 solid adnexal masses, DWI is now recommended. Such masses with low DWI signal on high b value image (e.g. > b 1000 s/mm2 ) can be regarded as benign. Any other solid adnexal mass, displaying intermediate or high DWI signal, requires further assessment by contrast-enhanced (CE)T1W imaging, ideally with DCE MR, where a type 3 curve is highly predictive of malignancy. For complex cystic or cystic-solid masses, both DWI and CET1W—preferably DCE MRI—is recommended. Characteristic enhancement curves of solid components can discriminate between lesions that are highly likely malignant and highly likely benign

Radiology AI Deployment and Assessment Rubric (RADAR) to bring value-based AI into radiological practice

Objective: To provide a comprehensive framework for value assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. Methods: This paper presents the RADAR framework, which has been adapted from Fryback and Thornbury’s imaging efficacy framework to facilitate the valuation of radiology AI from conception to local implementation. Local efficacy has been newly introduced to underscore the importance of appraising an AI technology within its local environment. Furthermore, the RADAR framework is illustrated through a myriad of study designs that help assess value. Results: RADAR presents a seven-level hierarchy, providing radiologists, researchers, and policymakers with a structured approach to the comprehensive assessment of value in radiology AI. RADAR is designed to be dynamic and meet the different valuation needs throughout the AI’s lifecycle. Initial phases like technical and diagnostic efficacy (RADAR-1 and RADAR-2) are assessed pre-clinical deployment via in silico clinical trials and cross-sectional studies. Subsequent stages, spanning from diagnostic thinking to patient outcome efficacy (RADAR-3 to RADAR-5), require clinical integration and are explored via randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Cost-effectiveness efficacy (RADAR-6) takes a societal perspective on financial feasibility, addressed via health-economic evaluations. The final level, RADAR-7, determines how prior valuations translate locally, evaluated through budget impact analysis, multi-criteria decision analyses, and prospective monitoring.Conclusion: The RADAR framework offers a comprehensive framework for valuing radiology AI. Its layered, hierarchical structure, combined with a focus on local relevance, aligns RADAR seamlessly with the principles of value-based radiology. Critical relevance statement: The RADAR framework advances artificial intelligence in radiology by delineating a much-needed framework for comprehensive valuation. </p

Repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT in recurrent ovarian carcinoma: test-retest measurements for tumor FDG uptake, diameter, and volume.

PURPOSE: Repeatability of baseline FDG-PET/CT measurements has not been tested in ovarian cancer. This dual-center, prospective study assessed variation in tumor 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake, tumor diameter, and tumor volume from sequential FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients underwent two pretreatment baseline FDG-PET/CT (n = 21) and CECT (n = 20) at two clinical sites with different PET/CT instruments. Patients were included if they had at least one target lesion in the abdomen with a standardized uptake value (SUV) maximum (SUVmax) of ≥ 2.5 and a long axis diameter of ≥ 15 mm. Two independent reading methods were used to evaluate repeatability of tumor diameter and SUV uptake: on site and at an imaging clinical research organization (CRO). Tumor volume reads were only performed by CRO. In each reading set, target lesions were independently measured on sequential imaging. RESULTS: Median time between FDG-PET/CT was two days (range 1-7). For site reads, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) for SUVmean, SUVmax, and tumor diameter were 0.95, 0.94, and 0.99, respectively. Repeatability coefficients were 16.3%, 17.3%, and 8.8% for SUVmean, SUVmax, and tumor diameter, respectively. Similar results were observed for CRO reads. Tumor volume CCC was 0.99 with a repeatability coefficient of 28.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There was excellent test-retest repeatability for FDG-PET/CT quantitative measurements across two sites and two independent reading methods. Cutoff values for determining change in SUVmean, SUVmax, and tumor volume establish limits to determine metabolic and/or volumetric response to treatment in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.This study was funded by Merck and Co.This version is the author accepted manuscript. The OnlineFirst version of this article can be found on the publisher's website at: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/20/10/2751.full.pdf+htm

Interesting case of ovarian sarcoidosis: The value of multi disciplinary team working

BACKGROUND: Sarcoidosis of the genital tract is a rare condition. Ovarian manifestation of this disease is rarer still. CASE PRESENTATION: The case presented here represents ovarian manifestation of sarcoidosis. At the point of referral to our hospital, based on computerised tomography (CT) ovarian carcinoma was a differential diagnosis. Further magnetic resonance imaging along with CT guided biopsy aided by laboratory study supported a diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Patient responded to medical management by a multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSION: The case shows the importance of FNAC and biopsy in case or ovarian masses and multi disciplinary team approach to management

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C). DESIGN: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L). INTERVENTIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography). REFERENCE STANDARD: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests. LIMITATIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information