Radiomics: Images are more than pictures, they are data

Radiology

Volumn 278, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 563-577

  Gillies, Robert J ^a   Kinahan, Paul E ^b   Hricak, Hedvig ^c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DOXORUBICIN;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL IMAGING; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; RADIOMICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; ALGORITHM; BIOPSY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DATA MINING; DECISION MAKING; GENOMICS; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM;

ALGORITHMS; BIOPSY; DATA MINING; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84955604605     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Institute of Medicine I. Evolution of Translational Omics. Lessons learned and the path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012.
2. Giger ML. Update on the potential of computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer. Future Oncol 2010;6(1):1-4.
3. Doi K. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2007;31(4-5):198-211.
4. Guo Z, Shu Y, Zhou H, Zhang W, Wang H. Radiogenomics helps to achieve personalized therapy by evaluating patient responses to radiation treatment. Carcinogenesis 2015; 36(3):307-317.
5. West CM, Barnett GC. Genetics and genomics of radiotherapy toxicity: towards prediction. Genome Med 2011;3(8):52.
6. Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T, et al. Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores. Eur Radiol 2015;25(10):2840-2850.
7. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, et al. CTbased radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2015;114(3):345-350.
8. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
9. Bates SE. It's all about the test: The complexity of companion diagnostic co-development in personalized medicine. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20(6):1418.
10. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372(9): 793-795.
11. Office of the Press Secretary. Fact sheet: President Obama's precision medicine initiative. The White House Web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/ 2015/01/30/fact-sheet-presidentobama-s-precision-medicine-initiative. Updated January 30, 2015. Accessed April 4, 2015.
12. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64(1):9-29.
13. Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, et al. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 2010; 467(7319):1114-1117.
14. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 2012;366(10):883-892.
15. Sottoriva A, Spiteri I, Piccirillo SG, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110(10): 4009-4014.
16. Sequist LV, Martins RG, Spigel D, et al. First-line gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring somatic EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(15):2442-2449.
17. Burstein HJ, Harris LN, Marcom PK, et al. Trastuzumab and vinorelbine as first-line therapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: multicenter phase II trial with clinical outcomes, analysis of serum tumor markers as predictive factors, and cardiac surveillance algorithm. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(15):2889-2895.
18. Wagle N, Emery C, Berger MF, et al. Dissecting therapeutic resistance to RAF inhibition in melanoma by tumor genomic profiling. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(22):3085-3096.
19. Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D, et al. Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med 2011;3(75): 75ra26.
20. Clauson J, Hsieh YC, Acharya S, Rademaker AW, Morrow M. Results of the Lynn Sage Second-Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma: changes in management and determinants of where care is delivered. Cancer 2002;94(4):889-894.
21. Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2004;22(4):295-299.
22. Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, Wiley EL, Morrow M. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9(10):982-987.
23. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999;86(11): 2426-2435.
24. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, et al. Radiomics: The process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30(9):1234-1248.
25. 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(4):441-446.
26. Clarke LP, Sriram RD, Schilling LB. Imaging as a Biomarker: Standards for Change Measurements in Therapy workshop summary. Acad Radiol 2008;15(4):501-530.
27. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006;47(6):1059-1066.
28. Clarke LP, Nordstrom RJ, Zhang H, et al. The Quantitative Imaging Network: NCI's Historical Perspective and Planned Goals. Transl Oncol 2014;7(1):1-4.
29. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC; for the Group. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011;258(3):906-914.
30. Kinahan P, Wahl R, Shao L, Frank R, Perlman E. The QIBA profile for quantitative FDG-PET/CT oncology imaging [abstr]. J Nucl Med 2014;55(Suppl 1):1520.
31. FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDGPET/ CT as an Imaging Biomarker Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance, Version 1.05, Publicly Reviewed Version. RSNA Web site. http://www.rsna.org/qiba/. Published December 11, 2013. Accessed May 20, 2015.
32. van Persijn van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL. RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist: A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 2010;20(6):1456-1467.
33. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6(12): 851-860.
34. Bomers JG, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PI-RADS. BioMed Res Int 2014;2014: 431680.
35. Kazerooni EA, Armstrong MR, Amorosa JK, et al. ACR CT accreditation program and the lung cancer screening program designation. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12(1):38-42.
36. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ. Quantitative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology 2013;269(1):8-15.
37. Zhou M, Hall L, Goldgof D, et al. Radiologically defined ecological dynamics and clinical outcomes in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary results. Transl Oncol 2014;7(1): 5-13.
38. Rios Velazquez E, Aerts HJ, Gu Y, et al. A semiautomatic CT-based ensemble segmentation of lung tumors: comparison with oncologists' delineations and with the surgical specimen. Radiother Oncol 2012;105(2):167-173.
39. van Dam IE, van Sörnsen de Koste JR, Hanna GG, Muirhead R, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Improving target delineation on 4-dimensional CT scans in stage I NSCLC using a deformable registration tool. Radiother Oncol 2010;96(1):67-72.
40. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25(6):675-680.
41. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1973;SMC-3(6):610-621.
42. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 2012;3(6):573-589.
43. O'Connor JP, Rose CJ, Waterton JC, Carano RA, Parker GJ, Jackson A. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(2):249-257.
44. Rose CJ, Mills SJ, O'Connor JP, et al. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameter maps. Magn Reson Med 2009;62(2):488-499.
45. Larkin TJ, Canuto HC, Kettunen MI, et al. Analysis of image heterogeneity using 2D Minkowski functionals detects tumor responses to treatment. Magn Reson Med 2014; 71(1):402-410.
46. Grossmann P, Grove O, El-Hachem N, et al. Identification of molecular phenotypes in lung cancer by integrating radiomics and genomics. Sci Transl Med (in press).
47. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006.
48. Pickup L, Talwar A, Stalin S, et al. Lung nodule classification using learnt texture features on a single patient population [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2015; SSM06.
49. Schabath MB, Massion PP, Thompson ZJ, et al. Behavior of incidence lung cancers in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. JAMA (in press).
50. Balagurunathan Y, Kumar V, Gu Y, et al. Testretest reproducibility analysis of lung CT image features. J Digit Imaging 2014;27(6): 805-823.
51. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45(1):255-268.
52. Carrasco JL, King TS, Chinchilli VM. The concordance correlation coefficient for repeated measures estimated by variance components. J Biopharm Stat 2009;19(1): 90-105.
53. Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A, et al. Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multi-parametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (in press).
54. Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105(13):5213-5218.
55. Kuo MD, Gollub J, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, Chen X. Radiogenomic analysis to identify imaging phenotypes associated with drug response gene expression programs in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007;18(7):821-831.
56. Grove O, Berglund AE, Schabath MB, et al. Quantitative computed tomographic descriptors associate tumor shape complexity and intratumor heterogeneity with prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One 2015;10(3):e0118261.
57. Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Achrol AS, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology 2014;273(1):168-174.
58. Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V, et al. Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(7):2685-2701.
59. Teruel JRHM, Heldahl MG, Goa PE, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI texture analysis for pretreatment prediction of clinical and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. NMR Biomed 2014; 27(8):887-896.
60. Klaeser B, Wiskirchen J, Wartenberg J, et al. PET/CT-guided biopsies of metabolically active bone lesions: applications and clinical impact. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(11):2027-2036.
61. Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Tuncali K, Shyn PB, Silverman SG. Abdominal masses sampled at PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy: initial experience with registration of prior PET/CT images. Radiology 2010;256(1):305-311.
62. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(21):1446-1452.
63. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: A framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88(20):1456-1466.
64. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374(9683):86-89.
65. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010;8:24.
66. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(9):712.
67. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012;483(7391):531-533.
68. Journals unite for reproducibility. Nature 2014;515(7525):7.
69. McNutt M. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science 2014;346(6210):679.
70. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 2012;490(7419):187-191.
71. Drawing Causal Inference from Big Data. Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia of the National Academy of Sciences. https://www.youtube. com/playlist?list=PLGJm1x3XQeK0NgFO X2Z7Wt-P5RU5Zv0Hv. Published April 2, 2015. Accessed May 5, 2015.
72. Nelson B. Data sharing: empty archives. Nature 2009;461(7261):160-163.
73. Devidas M, London WB, Anderson JR. The use of central laboratories and remote electronic data capture to risk-adjust therapy for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and neuroblastoma. Semin Oncol 2010;37(1):53-59.
74. Heilbrun ME. Evaluating RadLex and real world radiology reporting: are we there yet? Acad Radiol 2013;20(11):1327-1328.
75. Kahn CE Jr. Annotation of figures from the biomedical imaging literature: A comparative analysis of RadLex and other standardized vocabularies. Acad Radiol 2014;21(3):384-392.
76. Mabotuwana T, Lee MC, Cohen-Solal EV, Chang P. Mapping institution-specific study descriptions to RadLex Playbook entries. J Digit Imaging 2014;27(3):321-330.
77. Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K, et al. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 2013;26(6):1045-1057.