The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: The need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis

Scientific Reports

Volumn 5, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Leijenaar, Ralph T H ^a   Nalbantov, Georgi ^a   Carvalho, Sara ^a   Van Elmpt, Wouter J C ^a   Troost, Esther G C ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^b   Aerts, Hugo J W L ^a,c   Gillies, Robert J ^d   Lambin, Philippe ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; TUMOR MARKER;

CHEMISTRY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; LUNG NEOPLASMS; METABOLISM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84938942773     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep11075     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Lambin, P. et al. Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology-multifactorial decision support systems. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 10, 27-40, doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.196 (2013).
2. Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48, 441-446, doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036 (2012).
3. Aerts, H. J. W. L. et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5, doi:10.1038/ncomms5006 (2014).
4. Lin, P. et al. Diagnostic and staging impact of radiotherapy planning FDG-PET-CT in non-small-cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 101, 284-290, doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.06.030 (2011).
5. Lambin, P. et al. 'Rapid Learning health care in oncology'-An approach towards decision support systems enabling customised radiotherapy'. Radiother Oncol 109, 159-164, doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.07.007 (2013).
6. De Ruysscher, D., Nestle, U., Jeraj, R. & Macmanus, M. PET scans in radiotherapy planning of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 75, 141-145, doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.07.018 (2012).
7. Troost, E. G. et al. Innovations in radiotherapy planning of head and neck cancers: role of PET. J Nucl Med 51, 66-76, doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.061499 (2010).
8. Van Elmpt, W., Pottgen, C. & De Ruysscher, D. Therapy response assessment in radiotherapy of lung cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 55, 648-654 (2011).
9. Thie, J. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 45, 1431-1434 (2004).
10. Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y. & Lodge, M. A. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50, 122S-150S, doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 (2009).
11. van Elmpt, W., Ollers, M., Dingemans, A. M., Lambin, P. & De Ruysscher, D. Response assessment using 18F-FDG PET early in the course of radiotherapy correlates with survival in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 53, 1514-1520, doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.102566 (2012).
12. Takeda, A. et al. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on FDG-PET is a strong predictor of local recurrence for localized non-small-cell lung cancer after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Radiother Oncol 101, 291-297, doi:10.1016/j. radonc.2011.08.008 (2011).
13. Velazquez, E. R., Aerts, H. J., Oberije, C., De Ruysscher, D. & Lambin, P. Prediction of residual metabolic activity after treatment in NSCLC patients. Acta Oncol 49, 1033-1039, doi:10.3109/0284186X.2010.498441 (2010).
14. Vaidya, M. et al. Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 102, 239-245, doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.014 (2012).
15. Cook, G. J. et al. Are pretreatment 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, doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.107375 (2013).
16. El Naqa, I. et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 42, 1162-1171, doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2008.08.011 (2009).
17. Cheng, N. M. et al. Textural features of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images: prognostic significance in patients with advanced T-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med 54, 1703-1709, doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.119289 (2013).
18. Yang, F., Thomas, M. A., Dehdashti, F. & Grigsby, P. W. Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40, 716-727, doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2332-4 (2013).
19. Tan, S. et al. Spatial-Temporal [(18)F]FDG-PET Features for Predicting Pathologic Response of Esophageal Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.017 (2012).
20. Dong, X. et al. Three-dimensional positron emission tomography image texture analysis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: relationship between tumor 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake heterogeneity, maximum standardized uptake value, and tumor stage. Nuclear medicine communications 34, 40-46, doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835ae50c (2013).
21. Tixier, F. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 52, 369-378, doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.082404 (2011).
22. Tixier, F. et al. Correlation of Intra-Tumor 18F-FDG Uptake Heterogeneity Indices with Perfusion CT Derived Parameters in Colorectal Cancer. PLoS One 9, e99567, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099567 (2014).
23. Chicklore, S. et al. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40, 133-140, doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2247-0 (2013).
24. Cook, G. J. R. et al. Radiomics in PET: principles and applications. Clinical and Translational Imaging, doi:10.1007/s40336-014-0064-0 (2014).
25. Naqa, I. E. The role of quantitative PET in predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Clinical and Translational Imaging, doi:10.1007/s40336-014-0063-1 (2014).
26. Boellaard, R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50 Suppl 1, 11S-20S, doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057182 (2009).
27. Brooks, F. J. On some misconceptions about tumor heterogeneity quantification. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40, 1292-1294, doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2430-y (2013).
28. Orlhac, F. et al. Tumor Texture Analysis in 18F-FDG PET: Relationships Between Texture Parameters, Histogram Indices, Standardized Uptake Values, Metabolic Volumes, and Total Lesion Glycolysis. J Nucl Med 55, 414-422, doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.129858 (2014).
29. Cheng, N. M., Fang, Y. H. & Yen, T. C. The promise and limits of PET texture analysis. Ann Nucl Med, doi:10.1007/s12149-013-0759-8 (2013).
30. Galavis, P. E., Hollensen, C., Jallow, N., Paliwal, B. & Jeraj, R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 49, 1012-1016, doi:10.3109/0284186X.2010.498437 (2010).
31. Tixier, F. et al. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 53, 693-700, doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.099127 (2012).
32. Hatt, M., Tixier, F., Cheze Le Rest, C., Pradier, O. & Visvikis, D. Robustness of intratumour F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2486-8 (2013).
33. Leijenaar, R. T. H. et al. Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol 52, 1391-1397, doi:10.3109/0284186X.2013.812798 (2013).
34. Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K. & Dinstein, I. Textural Features of Image Classification. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb SMC-3, 610-621 (1973).
35. Galloway, M. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Vision Graph 4, 172-179 (1975).
36. Deasy, J. O., Blanco, A. I. & Clark, V. H. CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research. Med Phys 30, 979-985 (2003).
37. Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability. Psychol Bull 86, 420-428 (1979).
38. Izenman, A. J. Recent Developments in Nonparametric Density Estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 205-224 (1991).
39. Carvalho, S. et al. Prognostic value of metabolic metrics extracted from baseline positron emission tomography images in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Acta Oncol 52, 1398-1404, doi:10.3109/0284186X.2013.812795 (2013).
40. Parmar, C. et al. Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head & Neck cancer. Scientific reports 4, 11044, doi:10.1038/srep11044 (2015).
41. Coroller, T. P. et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol, doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015 (2015).
42. Parmar, C. et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PLoS One 9, e102107, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102107 (2014).
43. Panth, K. M. et al. Is there a causal relationship between genetic changes and radiomics-based image features? An in vivo preclinical experiment with doxycycline inducible GADD34 tumor cells. Radiother Oncol, doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.06.013 (2015). In press.
44. Hoeben, B. A. et al. Systematic analysis of 18F-FDG PET and metabolism, proliferation and hypoxia markers for classification of head and neck tumors. BMC cancer 14, 130 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-130 (2014).