Measuring computed tomography scanner variability of radiomics features

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 50, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 757-765

  Mackin, Dennis ^a   Fave, Xenia ^a,b   Zhang, Lifei ^a   Fried, David ^a,b   Yang, Jinzhong ^a   Brian Taylor, ^c,d   Rodriguez Rivera, Edgardo ^e   Dodge, Cristina ^f   Jones, Aaron Kyle ^a   Court, Laurence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^c MICHAEL E DEBAKEY VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f TEXAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; CT; Image features; Image texture; Phantom; Radiomics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOLOGY PHANTOM; RADIOMIC FEATURE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGING PHANTOM; LUNG TUMOR; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

AGED; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84943774122     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000180     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gillies R, Anderson A, Gatenby R, et al. The biology underlying molecular imaging in oncology: from genome to anatome and back again. Clin Radiol. 2010;65: 517-521.
2. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis.Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48:441-446.
3. Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:1-8.
4. Fried DV, Tucker SL, Zhou S, et al. Prognostic value and reproducibility of pretreatment ct texture features in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90:834-842.
5. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:675-680.
6. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, et al. Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1391-1397.
7. Hunter LA, Krafft S, Stingo F, et al. High quality machine-robust image features: Identification in nonsmall cell lung cancer computed tomography images. Med Phys. 2013;40:121916.
8. Balagurunathan Y, Gu Y, Wang H, et al. Reproducibility and prognosis of quantitative features extracted from CT images. Transl Oncol. 2014;7:72-87.
9. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1234-48.
10. Basu S, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, et al. Developing a classifier model for lung tumors in CT-scan images. 2011 I.E. International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011. IEEE: 1306-12.
11. Eldevik K, Nordhøy W, Skretting A. Relationship between sharpness and noise in CT images reconstructed with different kernels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139: 430-433.
12. Philips Healthcare. Brillance CT Big Bore Configuration. Instructions for Use; 2007.
13. Siemens Medical Systems. Somatom Sensation 10/16 Application Guide. Siemens Medical Systems; 2006:579.
14. Xu J, Fuld MK, Fung GS, et al. Task-based image quality evaluation of iterative reconstruction methods for low dose CT using computer simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:2881.
15. Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation. Operation manual for Toshiba Scanner Aquilion One. Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation; 2014.
16. Cook GJ, Siddique M, Taylor BP, et al. Radiomics in PET: principles and applications. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2:269-276.
17. Ganeshan B, Miles KA, Young R, et al. Hepatic entropy and uniformity: additional parameters that can potentially increase the effectiveness of contrast enhancement during abdominal CT. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:761-768.
18. Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). 1989;19:1264-1274.
19. Christodoulou CI, Pattichis CS, Pantziaris M, et al. Texture-based classification of atherosclerotic carotid plaques. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2003;22: 902-912.
20. Mendez AJ, Tahoces PG, Lado MJ, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis: automatic detection of malignant masses in digitized mammograms. Med Phys. 1998;25: 957-964.
21. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, 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. 2011;52: 369-378.
22. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, et al. Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2009;28:374-383.
23. Giger ML, Al-Hallaq H, Huo Z, et al. Computerized analysis of lesions in US images of the breast. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:665-674.
24. Zhang L, Fried DV, Fave XJ, et al. IBEX: an open infrastructure software platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. Med Phys. 2015;42: 1341-1353.
25. Ganeshan B, Miles KA, Young RC, et al. Texture analysis in non-contrast enhanced CT: impact of malignancy on texture in apparently disease-free areas of the liver. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:101-110.
26. Skogen K, Ganeshan B, Good C, et al. Measurements of heterogeneity in gliomas on computed tomography relationship to tumour grade. J Neurooncol. 2013;111: 213-219.
27. Ng F, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:342-8.
28. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2012.
29. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, et al. Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version. 2012;1.
30. Clarke LP, Nordstrom RJ, Zhang H, et al. The Quantitative Imaging Network: NCI's historical perspective and planned goals. Transl Oncol. 2014;7:1-4.
31. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, et al. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology. 2011;258:906-914.
32. Parmar C, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar R, et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PloS One. 2014; 9:e102107.
33. Kim H, Park CM, Goo JM, et al. Quantitative computed tomography imaging biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of lung cancer. Invest Radiol. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
34. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein IH. Textural features for image classification. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1973;3: 610-621.
35. Galloway MM. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Computer Graphics and Image Processing. 1975;4:172-9.