Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers

Scientific Reports

Volumn 5, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Parmar, Chintan ^a,c,d   Grossmann, Patrick ^a,e   Bussink, Johan ^f   Lambin, Philippe ^c   Aerts, Hugo J W L ^a,b,e  

^a Departments of Radiation Oncology   (Netherlands)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE   (India)

^e DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; HUMAN; LUNG TUMOR; MACHINE LEARNING; METABOLISM; MORTALITY; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; PATHOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MACHINE LEARNING; ROC CURVE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84939498419     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep13087     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Doroshow, J., Kummar, S. Translational research in oncology-10 years of progress and future prospects. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 11, 649 (2014).
2. Lambin, P. et al. Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology-multifactorial decision support systems. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 27-40 (2013).
3. Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. of Cancer 48, 441-446 (2012).
4. Coroller, T. P. et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiothe. Oncol. (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015 (2015).
5. 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 (2013).
6. Ganeshan, B. et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 266, 326-336 (2013).
7. Gevaert, O. et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology 273, 168-174 (2014).
8. Aerts, H. J. et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat. Commun. 5 (2014).
9. Leijenaar, R. T. et al. Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol. 52, 1391-1397 (2013).
10. Parmar, C. et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PLOS ONE 9, e102107 (2014).
11. Ganeshan, B., Abaleke, S., Young, R. C., Chatwin, C. R., Miles, K. A. Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage. Cancer Imaging 10, 137 (2010).
12. Alic, L., Niessen, W. J., Veenland, J. F. Quantification of heterogeneity as a biomarker in tumor imaging: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 9, e110300 (2014).
13. Jain, R. et al. Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 272, 484-493 (2014).
14. Nicolasjilwan, M. et al. Addition of MR imaging features and genetic biomarkers strengthens glioblastoma survival prediction in TCGA patients. J. Neuroradiol. (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.neurad.2014.02.006. (2014).
15. Segal, E. et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat. biotechnol. 25, 675-680 (2007).
16. Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., Talwalkar, A. Foundations of machine learning. Ch. 1, 1-3, (MIT press, 2012).
17. P?kalska, E., Duin, R. P. The dissimilarity representation for pattern recognition: foundations and applications. Vol. 64 (World Scientific, 2005).
18. Guyon, I., Elisseeff, A. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1157-1182 (2003).
19. Hawkins, S. H. et al. Predicting Outcomes of Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Using CT Image Features. IEEE Access 2, 1418-1426 (2014).
20. Basu, S. et al. in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. 1306-1312 (IEEE).
21. Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., Dinstein, I. H. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybern. 6, 610-621 (1973).
22. Galloway, M. M. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput. Vision Graph. 4, 172-179 (1975).
23. Deasy, J. O., Blanco, A. I., Clark, V. H. CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research. Med. Phys. 30, 979-985 (2003).
24. Oberije, C. et al. A prospective study comparing the predictions of doctors versus models for treatment outcome of lung cancer patients: a step toward individualized care and shared decision making. Radiothe. Oncol. 112, 37-43 (2014).
25. Hoang, T., Xu, R., Schiller, J. H., Bonomi, P., Johnson, D. H. Clinical model to predict survival in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with third-generation chemotherapy regimens based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group data. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 175-183 (2005).
26. Cistaro, A. et al. Prediction of 2 years-survival in patients with stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer utilizing 18F-FDG PET/CT SUV quantifica. Radiol. oncol. 47, 219-223 (2013).
27. Brown, G., Pocock, A., Zhao, M.-J., Luján, M. Conditional likelihood maximisation: a unifying framework for information theoretic feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13, 27-66 (2012).
28. Zhao, Z. et al. Advancing feature selection research. ASU feature selection repository (2010).
29. Kotsiantis, Sotiris B., Ioannis, D. Zaharakis & Panayiotis, E. Pintelas. Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques. Artif. Intell. Rev. 26.3, 159-190 (2006).
30. Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1-26 (2008).
31. Fernández-Delgado, M., Cernadas, E., Barro, S., Amorim, D. Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 3133-3181 (2014).
32. Yu, L., Ding, C., Loscalzo, S. in Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 803-811 (ACM).
33. Haury, A.-C., Gestraud, P., Vert, J.-P. The influence of feature selection methods on accuracy, stability and interpretability of molecular signatures. PLOS ONE 6, e28210 (2011).
34. Kuhn, H. W. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Res. Logis. Q. 2, 83-97 (1955).
35. Fisher, R., Pusztai, L., Swanton, C. Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics. Br. J Cancer 108, 479-485 (2013).
36. Ng, C., Pemberton, H., Reis-Filho, J. Breast cancer intratumor genetic heterogeneity: causes and implications. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 12, 1021-1032 (2012).
37. Brown, J. R., DiGiovanna, M. P., Killelea, B., Lannin, D. R., Rimm, D. L. Quantitative assessment Ki-67 score for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Lab. Invest. 94, 98-106 (2014).
38. Bolón-Canedo, V., Sánchez-Marono, N., Alonso-Betanzos, A., Benítez, J., Herrera, F. A review of microarray datasets and applied feature selection methods. Inform. Sciences 282, 111-135 (2014).
39. Christakis, N. A., Smith, J. L., Parkes, C. M., Lamont, E. B. Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort studyCommentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuition. Bmj 320, 469-473 (2000).
40. Glare, P. et al. A systematic review of physicians' survival predictions in terminally ill cancer patients. Bmj 327, 195 (2003).
41. Clément-Duchene, C., Carnin, C., Guillemin, F., Martinet, Y. How accurate are physicians in the prediction of patient survival in advanced lung cancer? Oncologist 15, 782-789 (2010).