A Comprehensive Framework for Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials

被引:0
作者
El Gazzar, Omar [1 ]
Onken, Michael [1 ]
Eichelberg, Marco [1 ]
Hein, Andreas [1 ]
Kotter, Elmar [2 ]
机构
[1] OFFIS Inst Informat Technol, Escherweg 2, D-26121 Oldenburg, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Freiburg, Dept Diagnost Radiol, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany
来源
MEDICAL IMAGING 2012: ADVANCED PACS-BASED IMAGING INFORMATICS AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS | 2012年 / 8319卷
关键词
DICOM; IHE TCE; pseudonymization; quality assurance; GSDF; IOD language;
D O I
10.1117/12.910872
中图分类号
O43 [光学];
学科分类号
070207 ; 0803 ;
摘要
Biomarkers captured by medical images are increasingly used as indicators for the efficacy or safety of a certain drug or treatment for clinical trials. For example, medical images such as CT or MR are often used for extracting quantitative measurements for the assessment of tumor treatment response while evaluating a chemotherapy drug for therapeutic cancer trials. Quality assurance is defined as "All those planned and systematic actions that are established to ensure that the trial is performed and the data are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) and the applicable regulatory requirement(s)" [1]. Our objective is to build a generalized and an automated framework for quality assurance within the clinical trials workflow. In order to reach this goal, a set of standardized software tools have been developed for quality assurance. Furthermore, we outline some guidelines as recommendations for the users handling the image data within the research workflow. The software tools developed include tools for image selection, image pseudonymization and image quality conformance check. The export tools are developed based on the specifications of the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Teaching and Clinical Trial Export (TCE) profile. A DICOM-based quality conformance approach has been developed by validating the DICOM header attributes required for a certain imaging application (e. g. CAD, MPR, 3D) and comparing imaging acquisition parameters against the protocol specification. A formal description language is used to represent such quality requirements. For evaluation, imaging data collected from a clinical trial site were validated against Multi-Planar Reconstruction (MPR). We found that out of 60 studies, about 30% of image series volumes failed the MPR check for some common reasons.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2630 RFC
  • [2] Clunie D., 2010, MATTER SIZE DISTANCE
  • [3] Accuracy of automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules across different multislice CT scanners
    Das, Marco
    Ley-Zaporozhan, Julia
    Gietema, H. A.
    Czech, Andre
    Muehlenbruch, Georg
    Mahnken, Andreas H.
    Katoh, Markus
    Bakai, Annemarie
    Salganicoff, Marcos
    Diederich, Stefan
    Prokop, Mathias
    Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich
    Guenther, Rolf W.
    Wildberger, Joachim E.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2007, 17 (08) : 1979 - 1984
  • [4] DICOM Standards Committee, 2006, DIG IM COMM MED DICO
  • [5] DICOM Standards Committee Working Group 14 Security, 2000, DIG IM COMM MED S41
  • [6] DICOM Standards Committee Working Group 14 Security, 2001, DIG IM COMM MED S55
  • [7] DICOM Standards Committee Working Group 18 Clinical Trials, 2009, DIG IM COMM MED S142
  • [8] Eichelberg M, 2004, PRO BIOMED OPT IMAG, V5, P57, DOI 10.1117/12.534853
  • [9] Eichelberg M., 2000, From PACS to Internet/Intranet, Information-Systems, Multimedia and Telemedicine. EuroPACS 2000. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference, P286
  • [10] New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
    Eisenhauer, E. A.
    Therasse, P.
    Bogaerts, J.
    Schwartz, L. H.
    Sargent, D.
    Ford, R.
    Dancey, J.
    Arbuck, S.
    Gwyther, S.
    Mooney, M.
    Rubinstein, L.
    Shankar, L.
    Dodd, L.
    Kaplan, R.
    Lacombe, D.
    Verweij, J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2009, 45 (02) : 228 - 247