Abstract DP020: Quantification of Hematoma and Perihematomal Edema Volumes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage The QUANTUM Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Optimizing patient selection and time-to-intervention will be crucial to the success of future clinical trials seeking to implement therapies and improve intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patient outcomes. Automated and accurate ICH and perihematomal edema (PHE) volumetry carries significant potential to strengthen trials targeting ICH and PHE expansion. Aims: The Quantification of Hematoma and Perihematomal Edema Volumes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (QUANTUM) trial was designed with aims of (1) validating a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) method for supratentorial, spontaneous ICH and PHE volumetry against the manual and semiautomated quantification methods and (2) establishing a model framework for the translation of AI technology through conduct of a clinical trial under the equivalence hypothesis paradigm. Methods: This trial was a prospective, randomized, clinical study with blinded outcome assessment. Six independent raters were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to ICH and PHE volumetry from non-contrast CT scans in the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive with either the semiautomated or manual quantification method. The primary outcomes were equivalence between (1)ICH volume measurements on admission (<24h from symptom onset) for the manual versus the fully automated or the sem-automated quantification methods, and (2)PHE volume measurements on day 3 (72±12h from symptom onset) for the manual versus the fully automated or the semiautomated quantification methods. The required sample size was 126 ICH and 126 PHE measurements, based upon a significance level of 0.025 to account for the two equivalence tests. Results: The geometric mean relative discrepancies between the fully automated and the manual ICH and PHE volume measurements did not cross the pre-specified 10% equivalence margin. The geometric mean relative discrepancies between the semiautomated and the manual ICH and PHE volume measurements did cross the pre-specified 10% equivalence margin. The fully automated method (mean 10.0±2.7s/scan) was significantly faster than the manual (mean 189±199 s/scan; P <0.001) and semiautomated (mean 79±68s/scan; P <0.001) methods. Conclusions: ICH and PHE volumes quantified by AI could replace clinician measurements within a 10% error margin and with substantially greater efficiency. The semiautomated method could not replace manual measurements. This trial demonstrated feasibility of the equivalence hypothesis framework for AI validation studies.