The potential of radiomic-based phenotyping in precisionmedicine a review

JAMA Oncology

Volumn 2, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 1636-1642

  Aerts, Hugo J W L ^a  

^a HARVARD INSTITUTES OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; NEOPLASM; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PATHOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHENOTYPE; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NEOPLASMS; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PHENOTYPE; PRECISION MEDICINE; PROGNOSIS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT;

EID: 84992349608     PISSN: 23742437     EISSN: 23742445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2631     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Kurland BF, Gerstner ER, Mountz JM, et al. Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30(9):1301-1312.
2. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology. 2011;258(3):906-914.
3. Pirker R, Pereira JR, Szczesna A, et al.; FLEX Study Team. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9674):1525-1531.
4. Lynch TJ, Patel T, Dreisbach L, et al. Cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the randomized multicenter phase III trial BMS099. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):911-917.
5. Khambata-Ford S, Harbison CT, Hart LL, et al. Analysis of potential predictive markers of cetuximab benefit in BMS099, a phase III study of cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):918-927.
6. Hirsch FR, Herbst RS, Olsen C, et al. Increased EGFR gene copy number detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization predicts outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with cetuximab and chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(20):3351-3357.
7. 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.
8. Gerlinger M, Swanton C. How Darwinian models inform therapeutic failure initiated by clonal heterogeneity in cancer medicine. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(8):1139-1143.
9. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278(2):563-577.
10. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205-216.
11. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(20): 3245-3251.
12. World Health Organization. Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization; 1979.
13. Zhao B, Oxnard GR, Moskowitz CS, et al. A pilot study of volume measurement as amethod of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(18):4647-4653.
14. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2009;252(1): 263-272.
15. 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.
16. Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006.
17. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1234-1248.
18. 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.
19. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, et al. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology. 2011;259(3):875-884.
20. Nishino M, Guo M, Jackman DM, et al. CT tumor volume measurement in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: performance characteristics of an emerging clinical tool. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(1):54-62.
21. Nishino M, Dahlberg SE, Fulton LE, et al. Volumetric tumor response and progression in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or gefitinib. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(3):329-336.
22. Rios Velazquez E, Aerts HJWL, 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.
23. Velazquez ER, Parmar C, Jermoumi M, et al. Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer. Sci Rep. 2013;3:3529.
24. Giger ML. Update on the potential of computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6(1):1-4.
25. 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.
26. Rios Velazquez E, Meier R, Dunn WD Jr, et al. Fully automatic GBM segmentation in the TCGA-GBM dataset: prognosis and correlation with VASARI features. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16822.
27. Porz N, Bauer S, Pica A, et al. Multi-modal glioblastoma segmentation: man versus machine. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96873.
28. Lederlin M, Puderbach M, Muley T, et al. Correlation of radio-and histomorphological pattern of pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(4):943-951.
29. Honda T, Kondo T, Murakami S, et al. Radiographic and pathological analysis of small lung adenocarcinoma using the new IASLC classification. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(1):e21-e26.
30. Hashizume T, Yamada K, Okamoto N, et al. Prognostic significance of thin-section CT scan findings in small-sized lung adenocarcinoma. Chest. 2008;133(2):441-447.
31. Aoki T, Tomoda Y,Watanabe H, et al. Peripheral lung adenocarcinoma: correlation of thin-section CT findings with histologic prognostic factors and survival. Radiology. 2001;220(3):803-809.
32. Lee HY, Lee KS. Ground-glass opacity nodules: histopathology, imaging evaluation, and clinical implications. J Thorac Imaging. 2011;26(2):106-118.
33. Wang H, Schabath MB, Liu Y, et al. Semiquantitative computed tomography characteristics for lung adenocarcinoma and their association with lung cancer survival. Clin Lung Cancer. 2015;16(6):e141-e163.
34. Takashima S, Maruyama Y, Hasegawa M, Saito A, Haniuda M, Kadoya M. High-resolution CT features: prognostic significance in peripheral lung adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma components. Respiration. 2003;70(1):36-42.
35. Takashima S, Maruyama Y, Hasegawa M, et al. Prognostic significance of high-resolution CT findings in small peripheral adenocarcinoma of the lung: a retrospective study on 64 patients. Lung Cancer. 2002;36(3):289-295.
36. VASARI feature set. https://wiki.nci.nih.gov /display/CIP/VASARI. Accessed January 10, 2016.
37. Zinn PO, Mahajan B, Sathyan P, et al. Radiogenomic mapping of edema/cellular invasion MRI-phenotypes in glioblastoma multiforme. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25451.
38. Opulencia P, Channin DS, Raicu DS, Furst JD. Mapping LIDC, RadLex™, and lung nodule image features. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24(2):256-270.
39. Gutman DA, Cooper LAD, Hwang SN, et al. MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology. 2013;267(2):560-569.
40. 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.
41. Naeini KM, Pope WB, Cloughesy TF, et al. Identifying the mesenchymal molecular subtype of glioblastoma using quantitative volumetric analysis of anatomic magnetic resonance images. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(5):626-634.
42. Pope WB, Chen JH, Dong J, et al. Relationship between gene expression and enhancement in glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory DNA microarray analysis. Radiology. 2008;249(1):268-277.
43. Gutman DA, Dunn WD Jr, Grossmann P, et al. Somatic mutations associated with MRI-derived volumetric features in glioblastoma. Neuroradiology. 2015;57(12):1227-1237.
44. Tixier F, HattM, Valla C, et al. Visual versus quantitative assessment of intratumor 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity: prognostic value in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(8): 1235-1241.
45. Wetzel SG, Cha S, Johnson G, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology. 2002;224(3):797-803.
46. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Its'Hak D. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;3(6):610-621.
47. Galloway MM. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Graph Image Process. 1975;4 (2):172-179.
48. Thibault G, Guillaume T, Bernard F, et al. Shape and texture indexes application to cell nuclei classification. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell. 2013;27(1):1357002.
49. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(3):345-350.
50. Cunliffe A, Armato SG III, Castillo R, Pham N, Guerrero T, Al-Hallaq HA. Lung texture in serial thoracic computed tomography scans: correlation of radiomics-based features with radiation therapy dose and radiation pneumonitis development. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(5):1048-1056.
51. Parmar C, Leijenaar RTH, Grossmann P, et al. Radiomic feature clusters and prognostic signatures specific for lung and head & neck cancer. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11044.
52. HattM, Majdoub M, VallièresM, et al. 18F-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. 2015; 56(1):38-44.
53. Yang F, Thomas MA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 40(5):716-727.
54. 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(6):1162-1171.
55. Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Achrol AS, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology. 2015;276(1):313.
56. Upadhaya T, Taman U, Yannick M, Eric S, Le Reste P-J, Mathieu E. Prognostic value of multimodal MRI tumor features in glioblastoma multiforme using textural features analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. New York, NY: IEEE; 2015:50-54.
57. Chang P, Schwartz L. Fully automated quantitative scoring of vasari glioma imaging features. Paper presented at: SIIM 2015; May 30, 2015;Washington, DC.
58. Yanagawa M, Tanaka Y, Kusumoto M, et al. Automated assessment of malignant degree of small peripheral adenocarcinomas using volumetric CT data: correlation with pathologic prognostic factors. Lung Cancer. 2010;70(3):286-294.
59. Gimenez F, Xu J, Liu Y, et al. Automatic annotation of radiological observations in liver CT images. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:257-263.
60. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJWL. Machine learningmethods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 13087.
61. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Rietveld D, Rietbergen MM, Lambin P, Aerts HJW. Radiomic machine-learning classifiers for prognostic biomarkers of head and neck cancer. Front Oncol. 2015;5:272.
62. Hong SJ, Kim TJ, Choi YW, Park J-S, Chung J-H, Lee KW. Radiogenomic correlation in lung adenocarcinoma with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: Imaging features and histological subtypes [published online January 19, 2016]. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4196-z.
63. Hsu J-S, HuangMS, Chen CY, et al. Correlation between EGFR mutation status and computed tomography features in patients with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Imaging. 2014;29(6):357-363.
64. Liu Y, Kim J, Balagurunathan Y, et al. Radiomic features are associated with EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinomas [published online February 16, 2016]. Clin Lung Cancer. doi:10.1016/j .cllc.2016.02.001.
65. Freer TW, UlisseyMJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology. 2001;220(3): 781-786.
66. Feig SA, Sickles EA, Evans WP, Linver MN. Re: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(16):1260-1261.
67. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology. 2005;236(2):451-457.
68. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program.AJR AmJ Roentgenol. 2005;185(4):944-950.
69. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2006;239(2):375-383.
70. Xu XW, Doi K, Kobayashi T, MacMahon H, Giger ML. Development of an improved CAD scheme for automated detection of lung nodules in digital chest images. Med Phys. 1997;24(9):1395-1403.
71. Shiraishi J, Li Q, Suzuki K, Engelmann R, Doi K. Computer-aided diagnostic scheme for the detection of lung nodules on chest radiographs: localized search method based on anatomical classification. Med Phys. 2006;33(7):2642-2653.
72. Chan HP, Doi K, Vyborny CJ, et al. Improvement in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: the potential of computer-aided diagnosis. Invest Radiol. 1990;25 (10):1102-1110.
73. Yin FF, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Doi K, Schmidt RA. Comparison of bilateral-subtraction and single-image processing techniques in the computerized detection of mammographic masses. Invest Radiol. 1993;28(6):473-481.
74. Arimura H, Katsuragawa S, Suzuki K, et al. Computerized scheme for automated detection of lung nodules in low-dose computed tomography images for lung cancer screening. Acad Radiol. 2004;11(6):617-629.
75. Beyer F, Zierott L, Fallenberg EM, et al. Comparison of sensitivity and reading time for the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary nodules at MDCT as concurrent or second reader. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(11):2941-2947.
76. Perry N, Puthaar E. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union; 2013.
77. Wood DE, Kazerooni E, Baum SL, et al.; National Comprehension Cancer Network. Lung cancer screening, version 1.2015: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13 (1):23-34.