CTSC:TTIC.100510
From NAMIC Wiki
Home < CTSC:TTIC.100510
Back to Collaboration:Harvard_CTSC
Agenda
- Consultations update
- Feedback from the ACRIN meeting
- Feedback from Harvard Catalyst retreat
- Multi-center trials
Harvard Translational Imaging Consortium Meeting Minutes October 5, 2010
In attendance:
- Valerie Humblet
- Randy Gollub
- Charles Guttmann
- Bob Lenkinski
- Stephan Voss
- Annick Van den Abbeele
- Ron Kikinis
- Simon Warfield
- Gordon Harris
- Jeff Yap
- Ivan Pedrosa
1. Consultations update
- A couple of new consultations requests this week, all are assigned to the consultant with the best expertise.
2. Feedback from the ACRIN meeting
- Several big centers (Wash U, Penn, Duke) gave a presentation about the mechanisms they have in place to fund pilot grants for scanning. Everybody agreed that we should learn more from them about the financing mechanisms in order to present that project to Harvard Catalyst Central again. Ron suggested that it will also be very useful to learn why our first proposal failed. Valerie will work with the group to find out more about the policy at each institutions (scanners owned by Radiology Research vs clinical scanners).
- Chris Henrick gave a presentation about mi2b2 during the informatics session, it was very well received. More details in the minutes form the mi2b2 meeting minutes
3. Feedback from Harvard Catalyst retreat
- Regulatory, IT and education gave a presentation. The new website is almost ready to launch and will be more user-friendly.
- Harvard Catalyst has a lot of excellent things to report to the NIH, we now have to brainstorm about properly capturing the progresses.
- mi2b2 is now consider a part of the imaging program, it can be included in our renewal proposal.
4. Multi-center trials
- Valerie sent the actions items to the group [1] and is scheduling a meeting for next week.
- The group wants to consider a virtual MR trial and create a list of what a PI has to do, from IRB to patient enrollment, scanning, analysis etc. Validation must not be omitted.
- Doing a real trial would be the next step. Bob suggested to provide a base set of outcome measures typically used (in breast cancer screening or MS for example) and then go to the opinion leaders to get their feedback. We could then propose a standardized protocol.
- The test-retest topic was also brought during the discussion. It is a crucial step and a publication in that domain would be extremely valuable but it is complicated and it requires a lot of time to analyze the data. Without additional funding it might be hard to achieve.
