Quantitative radiomics: Impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards

Journal of Medical Imaging

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2015, Pages

  Nyflot, Matthew J ^a   Yang, Fei ^a   Byrd, Darrin ^a   Bowen, Stephen R ^a   Sandison, George A ^a   Kinahan, Paul E ^a  

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

Author keywords

heterogeneity; positron emission tomography; quantitative; simulation; standardization; textural features

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; HISTOGRAM; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING PHANTOM; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; NOISE MEASUREMENT; PET-CT SCANNER; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION DETECTOR; RADIOBIOLOGY; RADIOMICS; SIMULATION; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

EID: 84994833338     PISSN: 23294302     EISSN: 23294310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. P. Lambin et al., "Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis," Eur. J. Cancer 48(4), 441-446 (2012).
2. H. J. Aerts et al., "Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach," Nat. Commun. 5(4006), 1-8 (2014).
3. D. Byrd, H. Linden, and P. E. Kinahan, "Efforts addressing SUV accuracy for pet quantitation and standardization," SNMMI PET Cent. Excellence Newsl. 10(4), 1-3 (2013).
4. A. B. Rosenkrantz et al., "Clinical utility of quantitative imaging," Acad. Radiol. 22(1), 33-49 (2015).
5. L. G. Kessler et al., "The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions," Stat. Methods Med. Res. 24(1), 9-26 (2014).
6. R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. H. Dinstein, "Textural features for image classification," IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610-621 (1973).
7. M. Amadasun and R. King, "Textural features corresponding to textural properties," IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 19(5), 1264-1274 (1989).
8. G. Thibault, J. Angulo, and F. Meyer, "Advanced statistical matrices for texture characterization: application to cell classification," IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61(3), 630-637 (2014).
9. M. Vaidya et al., "Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer," Radiother. Oncol. 102(2), 239-245 (2012).
10. F. Tixier 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. 52(3), 369-378 (2011).
11. G. J. Cook et al., "Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy?," J. Nucl. Med. 54(1), 19-26 (2013).
12. S. Tan et al., "Spatial-temporal [(1)(8)F]FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy," Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 85(5), 1375-1382 (2013).
13. R. A. Bundschuh et al., "Textural parameters of tumor heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT for therapy response assessment and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer," J. Nucl. Med. 55(6), 891-897 (2014).
14. M. Soussan et al., "Relationship between tumor heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer," PLoS One 9(4), e94017 (2014).
15. I. El Naqa et al., "Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes," Pattern Recognit. 42(6), 1162-1171 (2009).
16. N. M. Cheng et al., "Zone-size nonuniformity of (18)F-FDG PET regional textural features predicts survival in patients with oropharyngeal cancer," Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 42(3), 419-428 (2015).
17. P. E. Galavis et al., "Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters," Acta Oncol. 49(7), 1012-1016 (2010).
18. F. Tixier et al., "Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET," J. Nucl. Med. 53(5), 693-700 (2012).
19. F. Orlhac et al., "Tumor texture analysis in 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis," J. Nucl. Med. 55(3), 414-422 (2014).
20. M. Hatt et al., "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. (2014).
21. S. Yip et al., "Comparison of texture features derived from static and respiratory-gated PET images in non-small cell lung cancer," PLoS One 9(12), e115510 (2014).
22. M. Hatt et al., "Robustness of intratumour (1)(8)F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma," Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40(11), 1662-1671 (2013).
23. C. Comtat et al., "Simulating whole-body PET scanning with rapid analytical methods," in IEEE Nuclear Science Symp. Conf. Record, Vol. 1263, pp. 1260-1264 (1999).
24. University of Washington Imaging Research Laboratory, "ASIM PET simulator," http://depts.washington.edu/asimuw/ (17 June 2012).
25. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2012: Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC (2013).
26. R. M. Manjeshwar et al., "Fully 3D PET iterative reconstruction using distance-driven projectors and native scanner geometry," in Nuclear Science Symp. Conf. Record, 2006, pp. 2804-2807, IEEE (2006).
27. C. Sun and W. G. Wee, "Neighboring gray level dependence matrix for texture classification," Comput. Vision Graphics Image Process. 23(3), 341-352 (1983).
28. L. K. Soh and C. Tsatsoulis, "Texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery using gray level co-occurrence matrices," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 37(2), 780-795 (1999).
29. F. Yang et al., "Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer," Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40(5), 716-727 (2013).
30. M. A. McDowell et al., "Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2003-2006," Natl Health Stat Report 10, pp. 1-48 (2008).
31. H. Young et al., "Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group," Eur. J. Cancer 35(13), 1773-1782 (1999).
32. R. L. Wahl et al., "From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors," J. Nucl. Med. 50S1, 122S-150S (2009).
33. P. E. Kinahan and J. W. Fletcher, "PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy," Semin. Ultrasound CT MRI 31(6), 496-505 (2010).
34. FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee, "FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy, quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance, Version 1.05," Publicly Reviewed Version, QIBA, http://rsna.org/QIBA.aspx (11 December 2013).
35. L. Pierce et al., "A digital reference object for the analysis of PET SUV calculation accuracy," Radiology, Epub ahead of print (2015).