Tumor texture analysis in PET: Where do we stand?

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 56, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1642-1644

  Buvat, Irène ^a   Orlhac, Fanny ^a   Soussan, Michael ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

^b AVICENNE HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ENTROPY; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; HISTOGRAM; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR CELL; FEMALE; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; PROCEDURES;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 84946615253     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: 2159662X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.163469     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Marusyk A, Polyak K. Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1805:105-117.
2. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883-892.
3. Alic L, Niessen WJ, Veenland JF. Quantification of heterogeneity as a biomarker in tumor imaging: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e110300.
4. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162-1171.
5. O'Connor JPB, Rose CJ, Waterton JC, Carano RAD, Parker GJM, Jackson A. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:249-257.
6. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;3:610-621.
7. 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369-378.
8. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest C, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18f-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693-700.
9. Tixier F, Groves AM, Goh V, et al. Correlation of intra-tumor 18f-FDG uptake heterogeneity indices with perfusion CT derived parameters in colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99567.
10. 18F fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:187-203.
11. Yan J, Chu-Shern JL, Loi HY, et al. Impact of image reconstruction settings on texture features in 18F-FDG PET? J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1667-1673.
12. Galavis PE, 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. 2010;49:1012-1016.
13. 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:414-422.
14. 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1662-1671.
15. Leijenaar RTH, 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.
16. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW. The effect of small tumor volumes on studies of intratumoral heterogeneity of tracer uptake. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:37-42.
17. 18F-FDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1595-1606.
18. Orlhac F, Soussan M, Chouahnia K, Martinod E, Buvat I. Enhanced textural indices distinguish tissue types in FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(suppl 3):430.
19. Chalkidou A, O'Doherty MJ, Marsden PK. False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0124165.