Abstract
Purpose
This overview of the current landscape of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers (qMR IBs) aims to support the standardisation of academic IBs to assist their translation to clinical practice.
Methods
We used three complementary approaches to investigate qMR IB use and quality management practices within the UK: 1) a literature search of qMR and quality management terms during 2011–2015 and 2016–2020; 2) a database search for clinical research studies using qMR IBs during 2016–2020; and 3) a survey to ascertain the current availability and quality management practices for clinical MRI scanners and associated equipment at research institutions across the UK.
Results
The analysis showed increased use of all qMR methods between the periods 2011–2015 and 2016–2020 and diffusion-tensor MRI and volumetry to be popular methods. However, the “translation ratio” of journal articles to clinical research studies was higher for qMR methods that have evidence of clinical translation via a commercial route, such as fat fraction and T2 mapping.
The number of journal articles citing quality management terms doubled between the periods 2011–2015 and 2016–2020; although, its proportion relative to all journal articles only increased by 3.0%. The survey suggested that quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) of data acquisition procedures are under-reported in the literature and that QA/QC of acquired data/data analysis are under-developed and lack consistency between institutions.
Conclusions
We summarise current attempts to standardise and translate qMR IBs, and conclude by outlining the ideal quality management practices and providing a gap analysis between current practice and a metrological standard.
This overview of the current landscape of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers (qMR IBs) aims to support the standardisation of academic IBs to assist their translation to clinical practice.
Methods
We used three complementary approaches to investigate qMR IB use and quality management practices within the UK: 1) a literature search of qMR and quality management terms during 2011–2015 and 2016–2020; 2) a database search for clinical research studies using qMR IBs during 2016–2020; and 3) a survey to ascertain the current availability and quality management practices for clinical MRI scanners and associated equipment at research institutions across the UK.
Results
The analysis showed increased use of all qMR methods between the periods 2011–2015 and 2016–2020 and diffusion-tensor MRI and volumetry to be popular methods. However, the “translation ratio” of journal articles to clinical research studies was higher for qMR methods that have evidence of clinical translation via a commercial route, such as fat fraction and T2 mapping.
The number of journal articles citing quality management terms doubled between the periods 2011–2015 and 2016–2020; although, its proportion relative to all journal articles only increased by 3.0%. The survey suggested that quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) of data acquisition procedures are under-reported in the literature and that QA/QC of acquired data/data analysis are under-developed and lack consistency between institutions.
Conclusions
We summarise current attempts to standardise and translate qMR IBs, and conclude by outlining the ideal quality management practices and providing a gap analysis between current practice and a metrological standard.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 165-182 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Physica Medica |
| Volume | 101 |
| Early online date | 30 Aug 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2022 |
Keywords
- Biomarkers
- Body Composition
- Diffusion Tensor Imaging
- Humans
- Irritable Bowel Syndrome
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
- QAQC
- Clinical translation
- Metrology
- Quantitative MRI
Research Beacons, Institutes and Platforms
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre