Due Diligence for MRIMATH
NB. In the Market Analysis section of this report, we use information from a study performed by
TreMonti Consulting (https://tremonticonsulting.com/about-us/) for the UAB Research
Foundation.
1. Competitor Analysis
1.1 Tumor contouring by Radiation Oncologists. Practitioners currently have the
option of using software provided by the two manufacturers of radiation therapy
equipment, Varian and Elekta. Current software for contouring tumors is inefficient and
time consuming. It is used mainly for delineating the margins of normal brain
structures. The status quo for tumor contouring by radiation oncologists is doing it by
hand; a time-consuming process taking 30-60 minutes.
1.2 Tumor contouring by Radiologists. There are no direct competitors to
MRIMath for brain tumor contouring for radiology at this time. Our biggest challenge is
the status quo of radiologists relying on visual inspection of 2D images without tumor
contouring and without 3D volumetric analysis.
2. Competitor Profiles
2.1 Velocity, a software solution incorporated into the Varian
Suite: (https://embed.widencdn.net/pdf/view/varian/3ua3rxwbui/Velocity_ProductBrief_
RAD10329A_September2017.pdf?u=wefire)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiation oncologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Velocity: Software incorporated within the Varian suite. It includes a contouring
solution.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Velocity includes a tumor contouring solution as well as the ability to
compare CT scans and MRIs and share data.
• Value Proposition
▪ Transform disconnected data into actionable clinical knowledge.
• Revenue Model
▪ Velocity is included in the suite of software provided by Varian, a
manufacturer of radiation therapy equipment.
• Distribution
▪ Velocity is available to all radiation oncologists using the Varian
machines.
• Relevance to Idea
▪ Velocity is relevant to the idea of MRIMATH as it proposes to yield
contouring of brain tumors. However, we have interviewed radiation
oncologists who indicated that Velocity does not work well, it is
cumbersome, and it is faster and easier for them to do tumor contouring
by hand.
2.2 ABAS 2.0 a software solution incorporated in the Elekta suite
(https://www.elekta.com/software-solutions/treatment-management/external-beam–
planning/abas/)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiation oncologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o ABAS: Software incorporated within the Elekta suite. It includes a contouring
solution.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ ABAS includes a tumor contouring solution as well as the ability to use
user-defined atlases/libraries.
• Value Proposition
▪ Automated Contouring and Segmentation.
• Revenue Model
▪ ABAS is included in the suite of software provided by Elekta, a
manufacturer of radiation therapy equipment.
• Distribution
▪ ABAS is available to all radiation oncologists using the Elekta machines.
• Relevance to Idea
ABAS is relevant to the idea of MRIMATH as it proposes to yield contouring of
brain tumors. However, we have interviewed radiation oncologists who indicated
that ABAS does not work well for tumor contouring. Radiation oncologists use it
mainly for contouring normal structures of the brain.
2.3 Free Surfer (https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Free Surfer, Software.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Free Surfer applied Thresholding for tumor contouring.
• Value Proposition
▪ Contouring by thresholding.
• Revenue Model
▪ Free.
• Distribution
▪ Can be downloaded freely.
• Relevance to Idea
▪ We have demonstrated that Free Surfer has limited usability in monitoring
tumor volumes over time.
2.4 ITK (http://www.itksnap.org)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o ITK-SNAP, Software.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Software for image viewing and manual tumor contouring.
• Value Proposition
▪ Manual contouring.
• Revenue Model
▪ Free.
• Distribution
▪ Can be downloaded freely.
• Relevance to Idea
▪ Manual contouring is time-consuming.
2.5 Osirix (https://omictools.com/osirix-tool)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Osirix, Software.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Software for image viewing and manual tumor contouring.
• Value Proposition
▪ Manual contouring.
• Revenue Model
▪ Light version is free. Full version: $650.
• Distribution
▪ Can be downloaded from website.
• Relevance to Idea
▪ Manual contouring is time-consuming.
2.6 Invesalius (invesalius.github.io)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Invesalius, Software.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Software for image viewing and tumor contouring.
• Value Proposition
▪ Semi-automatic contouring based on thresholding, region growing, and
watershed techniques.
• Revenue Model
▪ Free.
• Distribution
▪ Can be downloaded from the website.
• Relevance to Idea
Technology is inefficient, time consuming, and does not work well for brain
tumors..
2.7 LabelBox (https://labelbox.com)
• Competitor Type
o Direct competitor for use by radiologists and radiation oncologists.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Labelbox, Software.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Artificial Intelligence Method for image segmentation, including tumors.
• Value Proposition
▪ Automatic contouring based artificial intelligence methods.
• Revenue Model
▪ Free.
• Distribution
▪ Can be downloaded from the website.
• Relevance to Idea
Requires significant expertise to get it to work. The method uses a generic
technology for AI; studies and the BRats competition have demonstrated that this
strategy does not work well for brain tumors.
2.8 Mipar (https://www.mipar.us)
• Competitor Type
o Indirect competitor, mainly used by pathologists and engineers.
• Competitor Name & Category
o Mipar Artificial Intelligence.
• Product/ Service Description
▪ Artificial Intelligence Method for image segmentation in general.
• Value Proposition