Radiomics in PET: Principles and applications

Clinical and Translational Imaging

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 269-276

  Cook, Gary J R ^a   Siddique, Musib ^a   Taylor, Benjamin P ^a   Yip, Connie ^a   Chicklore, Sugama ^a   Goh, Vicky ^a  

^a ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Positron emission tomography; Radiomics; Tumour heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

ENTROPY; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHOSPHORYLATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84907562591     PISSN: 22815872     EISSN: 22817565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40336-014-0064-0     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Rutman AM, Kuo MD (2009) Radiogenomics: creating a link between molecular diagnostics and diagnostic imaging. Eur J Radiol 70: 232-241.
2. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48: 441-446.
3. Asselin MC, O'Connor JP, Boellaard R, Thacker NA, Jackson A (2012) Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET. Eur J Cancer 48: 447-455.
4. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C et al (2007) Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol 25: 675-680.
5. Burrell RA, McGranahan N, Bartek J, Swanton C (2013) The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501: 338-345.
6. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ (2013) Quantitative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology 269: 8-15.
7. Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA (2013) Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 266: 326-336.
8. 18F]fluoro-d-glucose uptake and correlation to intratumoral heterogeneity. Anticancer Res 27: 2155-2159.
9. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. EORTC PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35: 1773-1782.
10. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50: 122S-150S.
11. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1. 0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37: 181-200.
12. 18)F-FDG PET/CT in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41: 452-461.
13. 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters with survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41: 276-282.
14. 18)F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41: 50-58.
15. 18F-FDG PET/CT is a reliable predictor of prognosis in soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 1836-1842.
16. 18F-FDG PET/CT qualitative and quantitative parameters investigated as pathological response predictors of locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 853-864.
17. 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 52: 369-378.
18. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 133-140.
19. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, Ganeshan B, Miles KA, Cook GJ, Goh V (2012) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 3: 573-589.
20. Yip C, Landau D, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Thomas R, Michaelidou A, Goh V (2014) Primary esophageal cancer: heterogeneity as potential prognostic biomarker in patients treated with definitive chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 270: 141-148.
21. Ng F, Ganeshan B, Kozarski R, Miles KA, Goh V (2013) Assessment of primary colorectal cancer heterogeneity by using whole-tumor texture analysis: contrast-enhanced CT texture as a biomarker of 5-year survival. Radiology 266: 177-184.
22. Goh V, Ganeshan B, Nathan P, Juttla JK, Vinayan A, Miles KA (2011) Assessment of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell cancer: CT texture as a predictive biomarker. Radiology 261: 165-171.
23. O'Sullivan F, Roy S, Eary J (2003) A statistical measure of tissue heterogeneity with application to 3D PET sarcoma data. Biostatistics 4: 433-448.
24. O'Sullivan F, Roy S, O'Sullivan J, Vernon C, Eary J (2005) Incorporation of tumor shape into an assessment of spatial heterogeneity for human sarcomas imaged with FDG-PET. Biostatistics 6: 293-301.
25. 18F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med 49: 1973-1979.
26. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D et al (2009) Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 42: 1162-1171.
27. Vaidya M, Creach KM, Frye J, Dehdashti F, Bradley JD, El Naqa I (2012) Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 102: 239-245.
28. 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med 54: 19-26.
29. Miwa K, Inubushi M, Wagatsuma K et al (2014) FDG uptake heterogeneity evaluated by fractal analysis improves the differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. Eur J Radiol 83: 715-719.
30. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3: 610-621.
31. Amadasun M, King R (1989) Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19: 1264-1274.
32. Galloway MM (1975) Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Graph Image Process 4: 172-179.
33. Thibault G, Angulo J, Meyer F (2014) Advanced statistical matrices for texture characterization: application to cell classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61: 630-637.
34. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R (2010) Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 49: 1012-1016.
35. 18F-FDG-PET scans of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: S89-S567.
36. Veenland JF, Grashuis JL, Gelsema ES (1998) Texture analysis in radiographs: the influence of modulation transfer function and noise on the discriminative ability of texture features. Med Phys 25: 922-936.
37. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D (2009) A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28: 881-893.
38. 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38: 1191-1202.
39. 18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med 52: 1690-1697.
40. 18F-FDG PET with pathologic features in non-small cell lung cancer: a feasibility study. Radiother Oncol 87: 55-58.
41. Vriens D, Disselhorst JA, Oyen WJ, de Geus-Oei LF, Visser EP (2012) Quantitative assessment of heterogeneity in tumor metabolism using FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82: e725-e731.
42. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW (2014) The effect of small tumor volumes on studies of intratumoral heterogeneity of tracer uptake. J Nucl Med 55: 37-42.
43. 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis. J Nucl Med 55: 414-422.
44. van Velden FH, Nissen IA, Jongsma F et al (2014) Test-retest variability of various quantitative measures to characterize tracer uptake and/or tracer uptake heterogeneity in metastasized liver for patients with colorectal carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol 16: 13-18.
45. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 53: 693-700.
46. 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 1662-1671.
47. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER et al (2013) Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol 52: 1391-1397.
48. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K et al (2009) Automated radiation targeting in head-and-neck cancer using region-based texture analysis of PET and CT images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75: 618-625.
49. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Mozeg D (2009) Coregistered FDG PET/CT based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28: 374-383.
50. 18F-FDG PET/CT for characterization of peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis type 1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40: 685-692.
51. 18F]FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85: 1375-1382.
52. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW (2011) Current measures of metabolic heterogeneity within cervical cancer do not predict disease outcome. Radiat Oncol 6: 69.
53. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW (2013) FDG uptake heterogeneity in FIGO IIb cervical carcinoma does not predict pelvic lymph node involvement. Radiat Oncol 8: 294.
54. 18F-fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol 58: 187-203.
55. 18F-FDG uptake imaging features are associated with major oncogenomic alterations in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 72: 3725-3734.
56. Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang CD et al (2012) Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data-methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264: 387-396.