Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2001) 69, 89-95; doi: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.
Janet Woodcock and Raymond Woosley. The FDA Critical Path Initiative and Its Influence on New Drug Development. Annu. Rev. Med. 2008. 59:1-12.
http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm, accessed 5 January 2010.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820&showFR=1, accessed 28 February 2010.
https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/workspaces/Imaging/Meetings/22Feb10_IMG, accessed 31 December 2010.
http://www.answers.com/topic/phenotype. Accessed 17 February 2010.
http://www.answers.com/topic/surrogate-endpoint. Accessed 17 February 2010.
Hua X, Lee S, Yanovsky I, Leow AD, Chou Y, Ho AJ, Gutman B, Toga AW, Jack CR, Bernstein MA, Reiman EM, Harvey DJ, Kornak J, Schuff N, Alexander GE, Weiner MW, Thompson PM and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative; Optimizing power to track brain degeneration on Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment with tensor-based morphometry: An ADNI study of 515 subjects. NeuroImage 48 (2009) 668-681.
Van Klavern et al., Management of lung disease nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 361;23, December 3, 2009.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA; From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. JNM, Vol. 50, No. 5, May 2009.
Bhooshan N, Giger ML, Jansen SA, Li H, Lan L, Newstead GM; Diseaseous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: Computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology, 2/11/2010.
Fuleihan GE, Testa MA, Angell JE, Porrino N, Leboff MS; Reproducilbility of DXA absorptiometry: A model for bone loss estimates. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research; Volume 10, Number 7, 1995.
Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, Dancey JE, Gatsonis C, Dodd LE, Shankar LK; Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as disease clinical trial end-points. European Journal of Disease 45 (2009) 290-299.
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2001) 69, 89-95; doi: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.
Meyer CR, Armato SG, Fenimore CP, McLennan G, Bidaut LM, Barboriak DP, Gavrielides MA, Jackson EF, McNitt-Gray MF, Kinahan PE, Petrick N, Zhao B; Quantitative Imaging to Assess Tumor Response to Therapy: Common Themes of Measurement, Truth Data, and Error Sources. Translational Oncology, Volume 2 Number 4 December 2009 pp. 198-210.
http://www.rsna.org/Research/TQI/upload/Workshop-Summary-FINAL.pdf, accessed 17 March 2010.
Giger, QIBA newsletter, February 2010.
Giger M, Update on the potential of computer-aided diagnosis for breast disease, Future Oncol. (2010) 6(1), 1-4.
International Organization for Standardization, "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement", (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva) 1993.
Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, "International Vocabulary of Metrology - Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms", (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Paris) 2008.
Buckler AJ, Kelloff G, Mozley PD, Frank R, et al., Quantitative Imaging Test Approval and Biomarker Qualification: Inter-related but Distinct Activities, accepted by Radiology, in press.
Jacobson JW, http://cancerdiagnosis.nci.nih.gov/pdf/PACCT_Assay_Standards_Document.pdf, accessed 7 February 2010.
Goodsaid F and Frueh F, Process map proposal for the validation of genomic biomarkers, Pharmacogenomics (2006) 7(5), 773-782.
Goodsaid FM and Frueh FW, Questions and answers about the Pilot Process for Biomarker Qualification at the FDA, Drug Discovery Today, Vol 4, No. 1, 2007.
Goodsaid FM et al., Strategic paths for biomarker qualification, Toxicology 245 (2008) 219-223.
Fleiss, J. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York 1986.
Bland M. and Altman D.; Measuring agreement in method comparison studies Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8; 135.
Barnhart H. and Barboriak D. Applications of the Repeatability of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: A Review of Statistical Analysis of Repeat Data Sets Translational Oncology (2009) 2, 231-235.
Pepe, M. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zhou, Z., Obuchowski, N., & McClish, D. (2002). Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York: Wiley.
Chakraborty, D. P. and Berbaum, K. S. Observer studies involving detection and localization: Modeling, analysis and validation. Medical Physics 31(8), 2313-2330. 2004.
Edwards, D. C., Kupinski, M. A., Metz, C. E., and Nishikawa, R. M. Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model. Medical Physics 29(12), 2861-2870. (2002).
Bandos, A, Rockette H, Song T, Gur D. Area under the Free-Response ROC Curve (FROC) and a Related Summary Index Biometrics, 2009; 65, 247-256.
Sargent, D, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, Dancey J, Gatsonis C, Dodd L, and Shankar L. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. European Journal of Cancer 2009;45(2):290-9.
Korn, EL, Albert, PS, and McShane, LM, Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models, Statistics in Medicine 24, 163-182, 2005.
Dodd LE, Korn EL. Lack of generalizability of sensitivity and specificity with treatment effects. Stat Med. 2008 May 10;27(10):1734-44.
Burzykowski, T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Editors. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer, New York 2005.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820&showFR=1, accessed 28 February 2010.
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/default.htm, accessed 5 January 2010.
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/default.htm, accessed 5 January 2010.
FDA informational material.http://www.national regulatory agency.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketApprovalPMA/ucm142714.htm, accessed 5 January 2010.
http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/ucm228210.htm, accessed 14 December 2010.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM230597.pdf, accessed 29 December 2010.
Eisenhauera EA, Therasseb P, Bogaertsc J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Disease 2009; 45:228-247.
Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques-initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225(2):416-419.
Schwartz L, Curran S, Trocola R, et al. Volumetric 3D CT analysis - An early predictor of response to therapy. J Clin Oncology 2007; ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 4576.
Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: Practical approaches and limitations. RadioGraphics 2008; 28:329-344.
Op cit. Appendix II. "Measurement of lesions". Page 243.
Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced disease. Disease 1976; 38: 388-394.
Quivey JM, Castro JR, Chen GT, Moss A, Marks WM. Computerized tomography in the quantitative assessment of tumour response. Br J Disease Suppl 1980; 4:30-34.
Munzenrider JE, Pilepich M, Rene-Ferrero JB, Tchakarova I, Carter BL. Use of body scanner in radiotherapy treatment planning. Disease 1977; 40:170-179.
Mozley PD, Schwartz LH, Bendtsen C, Zhao B, Petrick N, Buckler AJ. Change in lung tumor volume as a biomarker of treatment response: A critical review of the evidence. Annals Oncology; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq051, March 2010.
Petrou M, Quint LE, Nan B, Baker LH. Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. Am J Radiol 2007; 188:306-312.
Bogot NR, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Quint LE, Desjardins B, Nan B. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods. Acad Radiol 2005; 12:948-956.
Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: Implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2574-2582.
Winer-Muram HT, Jennings SG, Meyer CA, et al. Effect of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003; 229:184-194.
Mulshine JL, Jablons DM. Volume CT for diagnosis of nodules found in lung-disease screening. N Engl J Med 2009;
Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. Am J Radiol 2006; 186:889-994. Bendtsen C, Kietzmann M, Korn R, Mozley PD, Schmidt G, Binnig G. Semi-automated Volumetric Analysis of Lung Tumors in CT. Submitted.
Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Steve M. Larson SM. Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: Anatomic and functional biomarkers. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:239-249.
Buckler AJ, Mozley PD, Schwartz L, et al. Volumetric CT in lung disease: An example for the qualification of imaging as a biomarker. Acad Radiol 2010; 17:107-115.
Radiological Society of North America. http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Main_Page, accessed 07 Sep 2009.
Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, Dancey JE, Gatsonis C, Dodd LE, Shankar LK. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical end-points. European Journal of Cancer 45 (2009) 290-299.
Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8:431-40
Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin S. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992;11:167-78
Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med 2005;24:163-82.
Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Carroll K, et al. Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5218-24.
Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Piedbois P. Relation between tumor response to first line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000;356:373-8.
Burzykowski T, Buyse M, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, et al. Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1987-92.
Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998;54:1014-29
Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D. Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. Appl Stat 2001;50:405-22
Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J Royal Stat Soc A 2004;167:103-24
Bruzzi P, Del Mastro L, Sormani MP, et al. Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5117-25.
Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Haller DG, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8664-70.
Sargent DJ, Patiyil S, Yothers G, et al. End points for colon cancer adjuvant trials: observations and recommendations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials from the ACCENT group. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4569-74.
http://www.ielcap.org/, accessed 6 January 2011.
van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2221-2229.
Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, et al. Effect of nodule characteristics on variability of semiautomated volume measurements in pulmonary nodules detected in a lung disease screening program. Radiology 2008; 248:625-631.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/noteworthy-trials/nlst/updates, accessed 5 January 2011.
Nevitt MC, Felson DT, Lester G. The Osteoarthritis Initiative, Protocol for the Cohort Study. Osteoarthritis Initiative, V 1.1 6.21.06
Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989;8:431-40.
Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. Statistical validation of surrogate endpoints: problems and proposals. Drug Information Journal 2000;34:447-54.
Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 1992;11:167-78.
Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Geys H, Renard D. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000;1:1-19.
Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being mislead? Annals Int Med 1996;125:605-13.
Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being mislead? Annals Int Med 1996;125:605-13.
McCulloch CE, Searle SR. Generalized, Linear and Mixed Models. New York: Wiley; 2000.
Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Kalbfleisch, J., & Prentice, R. (2002). The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley.
Lindsey, J., & Ryan, L. (1998). Methods for interval-censored data. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 219-238.
Heagerty, P. J., Lumley, T., & Pepe, M. S. (2000). Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics, 56(2), 337-344.
Heagerty, P. J., & Zheng, Y. (2005). Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics, 61(1), 92-105.