Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance vs SPECT Imaging for Detection of Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: GadaCAD2 was 1 of 2 international, multicenter, prospective, Phase 3 clinical trials that led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of gadobutrol to assess myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in adults with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVES: A prespecified secondary objective was to determine if stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was noninferior to single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for detecting significant CAD and for excluding significant CAD. METHODS: Participants with known or suspected CAD underwent a research rest and stress perfusion CMR that was compared with a gated SPECT performed using standard clinical protocols. For CMR, adenosine or regadenoson served as vasodilators. The total dose of gadobutrol was 0.1 mmol/kg body weight. The standard of reference was a 70% stenosis defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). A negative coronary computed tomography angiography could exclude CAD. Analysis was per patient. CMR, SPECT, and QCA were evaluated by independent central core lab readers blinded to clinical information. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly male (61.4% male; mean age 58.9 ± 10.2 years) and were recruited from the United States (75.0%), Australia (14.7%), Singapore (5.7%), and Canada (4.6%). The prevalence of significant CAD was 24.5% (n = 72 of 294). Stress perfusion CMR was statistically superior to gated SPECT for specificity (P = 0.002), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (P < 0.001), accuracy (P = 0.003), positive predictive value (P < 0.001), and negative predictive value (P = 0.041). The sensitivity of CMR for a 70% QCA stenosis was noninferior and nonsuperior to gated SPECT. CONCLUSIONS: Vasodilator stress perfusion CMR, as performed with gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight, had superior diagnostic accuracy for diagnosis and exclusion of significant CAD vs gated SPECT.

Application of the Lugano Classification for Initial Evaluation, Staging, and Response Assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The PRoLoG Consensus Initiative (Part 1-Clinical).

Our objective was to provide consensus recommendations from a consortium of academic and industry experts in the field of lymphoma and imaging for consistent application of the Lugano classification. Methods: Consensus was obtained through a series of meetings from July 2019 until September 2021 sponsored by the Pharma Imaging Network for Therapeutics and Diagnostics (PINTaD) as part of the PINTaD Response Criteria in Lymphoma Working Group (PRoLoG) consensus initiative. Results: Consensus recommendations clarified technical considerations for PET/CT and diagnostic CT from the Lugano classification, including updating the FDG avidity of different lymphoma entities, clarifying the response nomenclature, and refining lesion classification and scoring, especially with regard to scores 4 and 5 and the X category of the 5-point scale. Combination of metabolic and anatomic responses is clarified, as well as response assessment in cases of discordant or missing evaluations. Use of clinical data in the classification, especially the requirement for bone marrow assessment, is further updated on the basis of lymphoma entities. Clarification is provided with regard to spleen and liver measurements and evaluation, as well as nodal response. Conclusion: Consensus recommendations are made to comprehensively address areas of inconsistency and ambiguity in the classification encountered during response evaluation by end users, and such guidance should be used as a companion to the 2014 Lugano classification.

Application of the Lugano Classification for Initial Evaluation, Staging, and Response Assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The PRoLoG Consensus Initiative (Part 2-Technical).

The aim of this initiative was to provide consensus recommendations from a consortium of academic and industry experts in the field of lymphoma and imaging for the consistent application of imaging assessment with the Lugano classification. Methods: Consensus was obtained through a series of meetings from July 2019 to October 2021 sponsored by the PINTaD (Pharma Imaging Network for Therapeutics and Diagnostics) as part of the ProLoG (PINTaD RespOnse criteria in Lymphoma wOrking Group) consensus initiative. Results: Consensus recommendations encompass all technical imaging aspects of the Lugano classification. Some technical considerations for PET/CT and diagnostic CT are clarified with regards to required imaging series and scan visits, as well as acquisition and reconstruction of PET images and influence of lesion size and background activity. Recommendations are given on the role of imaging and clinical reviewers as well as on training and monitoring. Finally, an example template of an imaging case report form is provided to support efficient collection of data with Lugano Classification. Conclusion: Consensus recommendations are made to comprehensively address technical and imaging areas of inconsistency and ambiguity in the classification encountered by end users. Such guidance should be used to support standardized acquisition and evaluation with the Lugano 2014.

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.

The debate over human visual perception and how medical images should be interpreted have persisted since X-rays were the only imaging technique available. Concerns over rates of disagreement between expert image readers are associated with much of the clinical research and at times driven by the belief that any image endpoint variability is problematic. The deeper understanding of the reasons, value, and risk of disagreement are somewhat siloed, leading, at times, to costly and risky approaches, especially in clinical trials. Although artificial intelligence promises some relief from mistakes, its routine application for assessing tumors within cancer trials is still an aspiration. Our consortium of international experts in medical imaging for drug development research, the Pharma Imaging Network for Therapeutics and Diagnostics (PINTAD), tapped the collective knowledge of its members to ground expectations, summarize common reasons for reader discordance, identify what factors can be controlled and which actions are likely to be effective in reducing discordance. Reinforced by an exhaustive literature review, our work defines the forces that shape reader variability. This review article aims to produce a singular authoritative resource outlining reader performance's practical realities within cancer trials, whether they occur within a clinical or an independent central review.

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 2: Practical Statistical Methods for Understanding and Monitoring Independent Reader Performance.

Though many clinical trials rely on medical image evaluations for primary or key secondary endpoints, the methods to monitor reader performance are all too often mired in the legacy use of adjudication rates. If misused, this simple metric can be misleading and sometimes entirely contradictory. Furthermore, attempts to overcome the limitations of adjudication rates using de novo or ad hoc methods often ignore well-established research conducted over the last half-century and can lead to inaccurate conclusions or variable interpretations. Underperforming readers can be missed, expert readers retrained, or worse, replaced. This paper aims to standardize reader performance evaluations using proven statistical methods. Additionally, these methods will describe how to discriminate between scenarios of concern and normal medical interpretation variability. Statistical methods are provided for inter-reader and intra-reader variability and bias, including the adjudicator's bias. Finally, we have compiled guidelines for calculating correct sample sizes, considerations for intra-reader memory recall, and applying alternative designs for independent readers.

Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI versus X-ray mammography in women with different degrees of breast density.

BACKGROUND: Detection of breast cancer in women with high breast densities is a clinical challenge. PURPOSE: To study the influence of different degrees of breast density on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) versus X-ray mammography (XRM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an additional analysis of two large Phase III clinical trials (G1; G2) which included women with histologically proven breast cancers, called "index cancers." Additional cancers were detected during image reading. We compared the sensitivity of CE-BMRI and XRM in women with different breast densities (ACR A→D; Version 5). For each study, six blinded readers evaluated the images. Results are given as the "Median Reader." RESULTS: A total of 774 patients were included, 169 had additional cancers. While sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting all index cancers was independent of breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 83%→83%; G2: 91%→91%) the sensitivity of XRM declined (ACR A→D) (G1: 79%→62%; G2: 82%→64%). Thus, the sensitivity difference between both imaging modalities in ACR A breasts of 3% (G1) and 9% (G2) increased to 21% (G1) and 26% (G2) in ACR D breasts. Sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting at least one additional cancer increased with increasing breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 50%→73%, G2: 57%→81%). XRM's sensitivity decreased (G1: 34%→20%) or remained stable (G2: 24%→25%). CONCLUSION: CE-BMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity compared to XRM.

Gadobutrol-Enhanced Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detection of Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Gadolinium-based contrast agents were not approved in the United States for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) prior to the current studies. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of gadobutrol for detection of CAD by assessing myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging. METHODS: Two international, single-vendor, phase 3 clinical trials of near identical design, "GadaCAD1" and "GadaCAD2," were performed. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) included gadobutrol-enhanced first-pass vasodilator stress and rest perfusion followed by LGE imaging. CAD was defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) but computed tomography coronary angiography could exclude significant CAD. RESULTS: Because the design and results for GadaCAD1 (n = 376) and GadaCAD2 (n = 388) were very similar, results were summarized as a fixed-effect meta-analysis (n = 764). The prevalence of CAD was 27.8% defined by a ≥70% QCA stenosis. For detection of a ≥70% QCA stenosis, the sensitivity of CMR was 78.9%, specificity was 86.8%, and area under the curve was 0.871. The sensitivity and specificity for multivessel CAD was 87.4% and 73.0%. For detection of a 50% QCA stenosis, sensitivity was 64.6% and specificity was 86.6%. The optimal threshold for detecting CAD was a ≥67% QCA stenosis in GadaCAD1 and ≥63% QCA stenosis in GadaCAD2. CONCLUSIONS: Vasodilator stress and rest myocardial perfusion CMR and LGE imaging had high diagnostic accuracy for CAD in 2 phase 3 clinical trials. These findings supported the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of gadobutrol-enhanced CMR (0.1 mmol/kg) to assess myocardial perfusion and LGE in adult patients with known or suspected CAD.

Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of gadobutrol, a 1.0 molar macrocyclic MR imaging contrast agent, in patients referred for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the central nervous system.

PURPOSE: Gadobutrol is a 1.0 M macrocyclic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent. A study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gadobutrol-enhanced versus unenhanced imaging for central nervous system (CNS) lesion visualization and detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international, multicenter, open-label, Phase III clinical trial. Patients underwent unenhanced and gadobutrol 1.0 M-enhanced (0.1 mmol/kg BW) MR imaging using a standardized protocol. Unenhanced and combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced images were scored by three independent, blinded readers for degree of lesion enhancement, border delineation, internal morphology, and total number of lesions detected (primary efficacy variables). Exact match of the MR diagnoses with the final clinical diagnosis, detection of malignant CNS lesions, and confidence in diagnosis were secondary efficacy variables. RESULTS: Of 343 enrolled patients, 321 were evaluated for efficacy. All primary efficacy endpoints were met: superiority was demonstrated for gadobutrol-enhanced versus unenhanced MR images (P < 0.0001 in all cases) for lesion enhancement, border delineation, and internal morphology. Noninferiority was met for mean number of lesions detected. There were improvements in the sensitivity of malignant lesion detection, without a loss in specificity, exact-match diagnostic accuracy, and reader confidence. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 4.1% (n = 14); all were nonserious. CONCLUSION: Gadobutrol 1.0M is an effective and well-tolerated contrast agent for CNS MRI.