A novel metric for quantification of homogeneous and heterogeneous tumors in PET for enhanced clinical outcome prediction

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 227-242

  Rahmim, Arman ^a,b   Schmidtlein, C Ross ^c   Jackson, Andrew ^c   Sheikhbahaei, Sara ^a   Marcus, Charles ^a   Ashrafinia, Saeed ^a,b   Soltani, Madjid ^a,f   Subramaniam, Rathan M ^a,d,e  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f K N TOOSI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Iran)

Author keywords

heterogeneity; metric; PET; prediction; quantification; survival analysis; texture

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; DISEASES; FORECASTING; HAZARDS; POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATES; RADIOTHERAPY; TEXTURES; TUMORS;

CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS; EQUIVALENT UNIFORM DOSE; HETEROGENEITY; METABOLIC TUMOR VOLUMES; METRIC; PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA; QUANTIFICATION; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

DIAGNOSIS;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; OROPHARYNX TUMOR; PANCREAS TUMOR; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; OROPHARYNGEAL NEOPLASMS; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84951056977     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/1/227     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abd El-Hafez Y G, Moustafa H M, Khalil H F, Liao C T and Yen T C 2013 Total lesion glycolysis: a possible new prognostic parameter in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma Oral Oncol. 49 261-8
2. Abdoli M, Dierckx R A J O and Zaidi H 2013 Contourlet-based active contour model for PET image segmentation Med. Phys. 40 082507
3. Aerts H J W L et al 2014 Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach Nat. Commun. 5 4006
4. Asselin M C, O'Connor J P B, Boellaard R, Thacker N A and Jackson A 2012 Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET Eur. J. Cancer 48 447-55
5. Baldock A L et al 2013 From patient-specific mathematical neuro-oncology to precision medicine Front. Oncol. 3 62
6. Basu S, Zaidi H, Houseni M, Bural G, Udupa J, Acton P, Torigian D A and Alavi A 2007 Novel quantitative techniques for assessing regional and global function and structure based on modern imaging modalities: implications for normal variation, aging and diseased states Semin. Nucl. Med. 37 223-39
7. Belhassen S and Zaidi H 2010 A novel fuzzy C-means algorithm for unsupervised heterogeneous tumor quantification in PET Med. Phys. 37 1309-24
8. Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, Lecchi M, Castiglioni I, Gilardi M C, Bammer H, Lucignani G and Fazio F 2004 Performance evaluation of the new whole-body PET/CT scanner: discovery ST Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 31 867-81
9. Burger I A, Vargas H A, Apte A, Beattie B J, Humm J L, Gonen M, Larson S M and Schmidtlein C R 2014a PET quantification with a histogram derived total activity metric: superior quantitative consistency compared to total lesion glycolysis with absolute or relative SUV thresholds in phantoms and lung cancer patients Nucl. Med. Biol. 41 410-8
10. Burger I A, Vargas H A, Beattie B J, Goldman D A, Zheng J T, Larson S M, Humm J L and Schmidtlein C R 2014b How to assess background activity: introducing a histogram-based analysis as a first step for accurate one-step PET quantification Nucl. Med. Commun. 35 316-24
11. Chalkidou A, O'Doherty M J and Marsden P K 2015 False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review Plos One 10
12. Chang K P, Tsang N M, Liao C T, Hsu C L, Chung M J, Lo C W, Chan S C, Ng S H, Wang H M and Yen T C 2012 Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG PET parameters and plasma epstein-barr virus DNA load in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma J. Nucl. Med. 53 21-8
13. Chen H H W, Chiu N T, Su W C, Guo H R and Lee B F 2012 Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer Radiology 264 559-66
14. Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden P K and Cook G J R 2013 Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in F-18-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40 133-40
15. Chirindel A, Alluri K C, Chaudhry M A, Wahl R L, Pawlik T M, Herman J M and Subramaniam R M 2015 Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT-derived parameters in pancreatic adenocarcinoma at initial PET/CT staging Am. J. Roentgenol. 204 1093-9
16. Choi B and Deasy J 2002 The generalized equivalent uniform dose function as a basis for intensity-modulated treatment planning Phys. Med. Biol. 47 3579-89
17. Conners R W, Trivedi M M and Harlow C A 1984 Segmentation of a high-resolution urban scene using texture operators Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 25 273-310
18. Cook G J R, Siddique M, Taylor B P, Yip C, Chicklore S and Goh V 2014 Radiomics in PET: principles and applications Clin. Transl. Imaging 2 269-76
19. Eary J F, O'Sullivan F, O'Sullivan J and Conrad E U 2008 Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma (18)F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome J. Nucl. Med. 49 1973-9
20. Edge S B and Compton C C 2010 The American joint committee on cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17 1471-4
21. El Naqa I et al 2009 Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes Pattern Recognit. 42 1162-71
22. Erlandsson K, Buvat I, Pretorius P H, Thomas B A and Hutton B F 2012 A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology Phys. Med. Biol. 57 R119
23. Gambhir S S, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman D H S, Coleman R E and Phelps M E 2001 A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature J. Nucl. Med. 42 1s-93s
24. Haralick R M, Shanmuga K and Dinstein I 1973 Textural features for image classification IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3 610-21
25. Hatt M, Le Pogam A, Visvikis D, Pradier O and Le Rest C C 2012 Impact of partial-volume effect correction on the predictive and prognostic value of baseline F-18-FDG PET images in esophageal cancer J. Nucl. Med. 53 12-20
26. Hatt M et al 2015 F-18-FDG PET Uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort J. Nucl. Med. 56 38-44
27. Kelloff G et al 2005 Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development Clin. Cancer Res. 11 2785-808
28. Kemp B J, Kim C, Williams J J, Ganin A and Lowe V J 2006 NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes J. Nucl. Med. 47 1960-7
29. Kikuchi M et al 2015 Prognostic value of pretreatment F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT volume-based parameters in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with known p16 and p53 status Head Neck 35 1524-31
30. Koyasu S, Nakamoto Y, Kikuchi M, Suzuki K, Hayashida K, Itoh K and Togashi K 2014 Prognostic value of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters including visual evaluation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 202 851-8
31. Kumar V et al 2012 Radiomics: the process and the challenges Magn. Reson. Imaging 30 1234-48
32. Kutcher G J and Burman C 1989 Calculation of complication probability factors for non-uniform normal tissue irradiation - the effective volume method Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 16 1623-30
33. Lambin P et al 2012 Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis Eur. J. Cancer 48 441-6
34. Larson S M et al 1999 Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis Clin. Positron Imaging 2 159-71
35. Li X A et al 2012 The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning full report #166 www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT-166.pdf: AAPM
36. Liao S R, Penney B C, Zhang H, Suzuki K and Pu Y L 2012 Prognostic value of the quantitative metabolic volumetric measurement on 18F-FDG PET/CT in stage IV nonsurgical small-cell lung cancer Acad. Radiol. 19 69-77
37. Lodge M A, Chaudhry M A and Wahl R L 2012 Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value J. Nucl. Med. 53 1041-7
38. Maisonobe J A, Garcia C A, Necib H, Vanderlinden B, Hendlisz A, Flamen P and Buvat I 2013 Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40 166-74
39. Mankoff D A, Dehdashti F and Shields A F 2000 Characterizing tumors using metabolic imaging: PET imaging of cellular proliferation and steroid receptors Neoplasia 2 71-88