4.3 Article

WIDEN: A tool for medical image management in multicenter clinical trials

Journal

CLINICAL TRIALS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 355-361

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1740774514525690

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AIL (Associazione Italiana Linfomi) - Sezione di Cuneo Paolo Rubino

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background It has been proposed that in clinical trials in which the therapeutic strategy is driven by functional imaging, central review of the images should be done in real time. Purpose We report our experience with a new tool for image exchange and review, called Web-Based Imaging Diagnosis by Expert Network (WIDEN), which we implemented for the HD0607 prospective multicenter Italian clinical trial in which Hodgkin lymphoma treatment was adapted based on results of an interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan performed after the first two cycles of chemotherapy. Methods We used WIDEN for general management of the clinical trial, site imaging qualification, image exchange, workflow control, blinded independent central review, inter-observer variability assessment, consensus creation, audit, and statistical analysis. Results As of February 2013, the interim PET was available for 512 patients; upon central review, 103 of the scans were judged to be positive and 409 to be negative. The median scan uploading and downloading times were 1 min, 25 s and 1 min, 55 s, respectively; the average and median times for diagnosis exchange were 47 h, 53 min and 37 h, 43 min, respectively. The binary concordance between pairs of reviewers (Cohen's kappa) ranged from 0.72 to 0.85. The 5-point scale concordance among all reviewers (Krippendorf's alpha) was 0.77. Conclusions WIDEN proved to be an effective tool for medical imaging exchange and online review. Data security, simplicity, feasibility, and prompt scan review were demonstrated. Central reviews were completed promptly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available