Download PDF
Rofo 2024; 196(04): 354-362
DOI: 10.1055/a-2175-4446
Review

Identification of impactful imaging biomarker: Clinical applications for breast and prostate carcinoma

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tobias Bäuerle
1   Institute of Radiology, University Medical Center Erlangen, Germany
,
Matthias Dietzel 
1   Institute of Radiology, University Medical Center Erlangen, Germany
,
Katja Pinker
2   Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
,
David Bonekamp
3   Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Kevin S. Zhang
3   Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
3   Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Peter Bannas
4   Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Clemens C. Cyran
5   Institute of Radiology, University Medical Center München (LMU), München, Germany
,
Michel Eisenblätter
6   Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum OWL, Universität Bielefeld Campus Klinikum Lippe, 32756 Detmold, Germany
,
Ingrid Hilger
7   Experimental Radiology, University Medical Center Jena, Germany
,
Caroline Jung
4   Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Fritz Schick
8   Experimental Radiology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Germany
,
Franz Wegner
9   Department of Radiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Fabian Kiessling 
10   Experimental Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Aachen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Imaging biomarkers are quantitative parameters from imaging modalities, which are collected noninvasively, allow conclusions about physiological and pathophysiological processes, and may consist of single (monoparametric) or multiple parameters (bi- or multiparametric).

Method This review aims to present the state of the art for the quantification of multimodal and multiparametric imaging biomarkers. Here, the use of biomarkers using artificial intelligence will be addressed and the clinical application of imaging biomarkers in breast and prostate cancers will be explained. For the preparation of the review article, an extensive literature search was performed based on Pubmed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The results were evaluated and discussed for consistency and generality.

Results and Conclusion Different imaging biomarkers (multiparametric) are quantified based on the use of complementary imaging modalities (multimodal) from radiology, nuclear medicine, or hybrid imaging. From these techniques, parameters are determined at the morphological (e. g., size), functional (e. g., vascularization or diffusion), metabolic (e. g., glucose metabolism), or molecular (e. g., expression of prostate specific membrane antigen, PSMA) level. The integration and weighting of imaging biomarkers are increasingly being performed with artificial intelligence, using machine learning algorithms. In this way, the clinical application of imaging biomarkers is increasing, as illustrated by the diagnosis of breast and prostate cancers.

Key Points

  • Imaging biomarkers are quantitative parameters to detect physiological and pathophysiological processes.

  • Imaging biomarkers from multimodality and multiparametric imaging are integrated using artificial intelligence algorithms.

  • Quantitative imaging parameters are a fundamental component of diagnostics for all tumor entities, such as for mammary and prostate carcinomas.

Citation Format

  • Bäuerle T, Dietzel M, Pinker K et al. Identification of impactful imaging biomarker: Clinical applications for breast and prostate carcinoma. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 354 – 362

Keywords

quantification - artificial intelligence - imaging - breast cancer - prostate cancer - biomarker


Publication History

Received: 14 April 2023

Accepted: 19 August 2023

Article published online:
09 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 European Society of Radiology. ESR Statement on the Validation of Imaging Biomarkers. Insights Imaging 2020; 4 (01) 76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 deSouza NM, van der Lugt A, Deroose CM. et al. Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC. Insights Imaging 2022; 13: 159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Alberich-Bayarri A, Neri E, Martí-Bonmatí L. Imaging biomarkers and imaging biobanks. In: Ranschaert E, Morozov S, Algra P. Hrsg. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: Opportunities, Applications and Risks. Springer Nature; 2019: 119-126 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94878-2
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pfaehler E, Burggraaff C, Kramer G. et al. PET segmentation of bulky tumors: Strategies and workflows to improve inter-observer variability. PLoS One 2020; 15 (03) e0230901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yip SSF, Parmar C, Blezek D. et al. Application of the 3D slicer chest imaging platform segmentation algorithm for large lung nodule delineation. PLoS One 2017; 12 (06) e0178944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology 2016; 278 (02) 563-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Patel JL, Goyal RK. Applications of artificial neural networks in medical science. Curr Clin Pharmacol 2007; 2 (03) 217-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Han T, Pedersoli KJ, Zimmermann F. et al. Image prediction of disease progression for osteoarthritis by style-based manifold extrapolation. Nat Mach Intell 2022; 4: 1029-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ellmann S, Wenkel E, Dietzel M. et al. Implementation of machine learning into clinical breast MRI: Potential for objective and accurate decision-making in equivocal breast lesions. PLoS One 2020; 15 (01) e0228446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ellmann S, Schlicht M, Dietzel M. et al. Computer-aided diagnosis in multiparametric MRI of the prostate: An open-access online tool for lesion classification with high accuracy. Cancers 2020; 12 (09) E2366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Molyneux PD, Miller DH, Filippi M. et al. Visual analysis of serial T2-weighted MRI in multiple sclerosis: intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Neuroradiology 1999; 41 (12) 882-888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L. et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (27) 3048-3058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A. et al. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in At-Risk Patients. Radiology 2018; 289 (03) 816-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45 (02) 228-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jiang Y, You K, Qiu X. et al. Tumor volume predicts local recurrence in early rectal cancer treated with radical resection: A retrospective observational study of 270 patients. Int J Surg 2018; 49: 68-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: State of the Art. Radiology 2019; 292 (03) 520-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Coffey K, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening. Eur J Radiol 2022; 156: 110513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dietzel M, Trimboli RM, Zanardo M. et al. The potential of predictive and prognostic breast MRI (P2-bMRI). Eur Radiol Exp 2022; 6 (01) 42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15 (06) 1159-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM. et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (22) 2091-2102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT. et al. Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur Radiol 2022; 32 (06) 4036-4045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kontos D, Winham SJ, Oustimov A. et al. Radiomic Phenotypes of Mammographic Parenchymal Complexity: Toward Augmenting Breast Density in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment. Radiology 2019; 290 (01) 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pinto Dos Santos D, Dietzel M, Baessler B. A decade of radiomics research: are images really data or just patterns in the noise?. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gamble P, Jaroensri R, Wang H. et al. Determining breast cancer biomarker status and associated morphological features using deep learning. Commu Med 2021; 1: 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Baltzer P, Mann RM, Iima M. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast-a consensus and mission statement from the EUSOBI International Breast Diffusion-Weighted Imaging working group. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (03) 1436-1450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT. How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging 2018; 9 (03) 325-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL. et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10 (03) 223-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Duffy MJ. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer: Past, present and future. Semin Cancer Biol 2018; 52 (01) 56-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L. et al. Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dietzel M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Ellmann S. et al. Automated volumetric radiomic analysis of breast cancer vascularization improves survival prediction in primary breast cancer. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 3664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Baltzer PAT, Krug KB. et al. Evidence-Based and Structured Diagnosis in Breast MRI using the Kaiser Score. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194 (11) 1216-1228
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Clauser P, Krug B, Bickel H. et al. Diffusion-weighted Imaging Allows for Downgrading MR BI-RADS 4 Lesions in Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27 (07) 1941-1948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M. et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-1777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R. et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ahmed HU, El-Shater BosailyA, Brown LC. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP. et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 1035-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kaneko M, Lenon MSL, Storino Ramacciotti L. et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis. Ther Adv Urol 2022; 14 DOI: 10.1177/17562872221145625.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B. et al. Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23: 428-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 340-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Caglic I, Sushentsev N, Gnanapragasam VJ. et al. MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Eur Radiol 2021; 31: 2696-2705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Knoedler JJ, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH. et al. The association of tumor volume with mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17: 144-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Breit HC, Block TK, Winkel DJ. et al. Revisiting DCE-MRI: Classification of Prostate Tissue Using Descriptive Signal Enhancement Features Derived From DCE-MRI Acquisition With High Spatiotemporal Resolution. Invest Radiol 2021; 56: 553-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Tavakoli AA, Hielscher T, Badura P. et al. Contribution of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion MRI to PI-RADS for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology 2023; 306: 186-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Panda A, O'Connor G, Lo WC. et al. Targeted Biopsy Validation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Characterization With Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting and Diffusion Mapping. Invest Radiol 2019; 54: 485-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Pang Y, Turkbey B, Bernardo M. et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: an evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations. Magn Reson Med 2013; 69: 553-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Tavakoli AA, Kuder TA, Tichy D. et al. Measured Multipoint Ultra-High b-Value Diffusion MRI in the Assessment of MRI-Detected Prostate Lesions. Invest Radiol 2021; 56: 94-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bonekamp D, Kohl S, Wiesenfarth M. et al. Radiomic Machine Learning for Characterization of Prostate Lesions with MRI: Comparison to ADC Values. Radiology 2018; 289: 128-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Zwanenburg A, Vallières M, Abdalah MA. et al. The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping. Radiology 2020; 295: 328-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Zhang KS, Schelb P, Netzer N. et al. Pseudoprospective Paraclinical Interaction of Radiology Residents With a Deep Learning System for Prostate Cancer Detection: Experience, Performance, and Identification of the Need for Intermittent Recalibration. Invest Radiol 2022; 57: 601-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Dietzel M, Clauser P, Kapetas P. et al. Images Are Data: A Breast Imaging Perspective on a Contemporary Paradigm. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193 (08) 898-908
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar