Radiomics and its emerging role in lung cancer research, imaging biomarkers and clinical management: State of the art

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 86, Issue , 2017, Pages 297-307

  Lee, Geewon ^a,b   Lee, Ho Yun ^a   Park, Hyunjin ^c   Schiebler, Mark L ^d   van Beek, Edwin J R ^e   Ohno, Yoshiharu ^f   Seo, Joon Beom ^g   Leung, Ann ^h  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Pusan National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^c Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^f KOBE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^g University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^h STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Computed tomography; Image processing; Lung cancer; Outcomes assessment; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER RESEARCH; CLONAL EVOLUTION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; LUNG CANCER; MORPHOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGY; RADIOMICS; REVIEW; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENOMICS; LUNG TUMOR; METABOLISM; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; GENOMICS; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84994851692     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.005     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. [1] Aberle, D.R., DeMello, S., Berg, C.D., et al. Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 369 (2013), 920–931.
2. [2] Tan, W.L., Jain, A., Takano, A., et al. Novel therapeutic targets on the horizon for lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 17 (2016), e347–362.
3. [3] Chi, J.T., Thrall, D.E., Jiang, C., et al. Comparison of genomics and functional imaging from canine sarcomas treated with thermoradiotherapy predicts therapeutic response and identifies combination therapeutics. Clin. Cancer Res. 17 (2011), 2549–2560.
4. [4] Zegers, C.M., van Elmpt, W., Reymen, B., et al. In vivo quantification of hypoxic and metabolic status of NSCLC tumors using [18F]HX4 and [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging. Clin. Cancer Res. 20 (2014), 6389–6397.
5. [5] van Elmpt, W., Zegers, C.M., Reymen, B., et al. Multiparametric imaging of patient and tumour heterogeneity in non-small-cell lung cancer: quantification of tumour hypoxia, metabolism and perfusion. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 43 (2016), 240–248.
6. [6] Gevaert, O., Xu, J., Hoang, C.D., et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data–methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264 (2012), 387–396.
7. [7] Kim, Y.N., Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Dual-energy CT in patients treated with anti-angiogenic agents for non-small cell lung cancer: new method of monitoring tumor response. Korean J. Radiol. 13 (2012), 702–710.
8. [8] Lee, H.Y., Jeong, J.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Histopathology of lung adenocarcinoma based on new IASLC/ATS/ERS classification: prognostic stratification with functional and metabolic imaging biomarkers. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 38 (2013), 905–913.
9. [9] Lee, H.Y., Kim, N., Goo, J.M., Chie, E.K., Song, H.J., Perfusion parameters as potential imaging biomarkers for the early prediction of radiotherapy response in a rat tumor model. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 22 (2016), 231–240.
10. [10] Messiou, C., Orton, M., Ang, J.E., et al. Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity. Radiology 265 (2012), 426–436.
11. [11] Divine, M.R., Katiyar, P., Kohlhofer, U., Quintanilla-Martinez, L., Pichler, B.J., Disselhorst, J.A., A population-based Gaussian Mixture Model Incorporating 18F-FDG PET and diffusion-weighted MRI Quantifies Tumor Tissue Classes. J. Nuclear Med. 57 (2016), 473–479.
12. [12] Chen, L., Choyke, P.L., Chan, T.H., Chi, C.Y., Wang, G., Wang, Y., Tissue-specific compartmental analysis for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of complex tumors. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 30 (2011), 2044–2058.
13. [13] Chong, Y., Kim, J.H., Lee, H.Y., et al. Quantitative CT variables enabling response prediction in neoadjuvant therapy with EGFR-TKIs: are they different from those in neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy?. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e88598.
14. [14] Son, J.Y., Lee, H.Y., Kim, J.H., et al. Quantitative CT analysis of pulmonary ground-glass opacity nodules for distinguishing invasive adenocarcinoma from non-invasive or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma: the added value of using iodine mapping. Eur. Radiol. 26 (2016), 43–54.
15. [15] Aerts, H.J., Velazquez, E.R., Leijenaar, R.T., et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat. Commun., 5, 2014, 4006.
16. [16] Ko, J.P., Suh, J., Ibidapo, O., et al. Lung adenocarcinoma: correlation of quantitative CT findings with pathologic findings. Radiology 280 (2016), 931–939.
17. [17] Park, J., Kobayashi, Y., Urayama, K.Y., Yamaura, H., Yatabe, Y., Hida, T., Imaging characteristics of driver mutations in EGFR, KRAS, and ALK among treatment-naive patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0161081.
18. [18] Kothari, S., Phan, J.H., Stokes, T.H., Wang, M.D., Pathology imaging informatics for quantitative analysis of whole-slide images. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 20 (2013), 1099–1108.
19. [19] Yu, K.H., Zhang, C., Berry, G.J., et al. Predicting non-small cell lung cancer prognosis by fully automated microscopic pathology image features. Nat. Commun., 7, 2016, 12474.
20. [20] Heye, T., Merkle, E.M., Reiner, C.S., et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. Radiology 266 (2013), 812–821.
21. [21] Rios Velazquez, E., Aerts, H.J., Gu, Y., et al. A semiautomatic CT-based ensemble segmentation of lung tumors: comparison with oncologists' delineations and with the surgical specimen. Radiother. Oncol. 105 (2012), 167–173.
22. [22] Lee, H.Y., Jeong, J.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Solitary pulmonary nodular lung adenocarcinoma: correlation of histopathologic scoring and patient survival with imaging biomarkers. Radiology 264 (2012), 884–893.
23. [23] Motoi, N., Szoke, J., Riely, G.J., et al. Lung adenocarcinoma: modification of the 2004 WHO mixed subtype to include the major histologic subtype suggests correlations between papillary and micropapillary adenocarcinoma subtypes, EGFR mutations and gene expression analysis. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 32 (2008), 810–827.
24. [24] Hanahan, D., Weinberg, R.A., Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144 (2011), 646–674.
25. [25] Jamal-Hanjani, M., Quezada, S.A., Larkin, J., Swanton, C., Translational implications of tumor heterogeneity. Clin. Cancer Res. 21 (2015), 1258–1266.
26. [26] Burrell, R.A., McGranahan, N., Bartek, J., Swanton, C., The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature 501 (2013), 338–345.
27. [27] Swanton, C., Intratumor heterogeneity: evolution through space and time. Cancer Res. 72 (2012), 4875–4882.
28. [28] Greaves, M., Maley, C.C., Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature 481 (2012), 306–313.
29. [29] de Bruin, E.C., McGranahan, N., Mitter, R., et al. Spatial and temporal diversity in genomic instability processes defines lung cancer evolution. Science 346 (2014), 251–256.
30. [30] Killock, D., Genetics: intratumour heterogeneity—a game of snakes and ladders. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., 13, 2016, 1.
31. [31] Aparicio, S., Caldas, C., The implications of clonal genome evolution for cancer medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 368 (2013), 842–851.
32. [32] Baldus, S.E., Schaefer, K.L., Engers, R., Hartleb, D., Stoecklein, N.H., Gabbert, H.E., Prevalence and heterogeneity of KRAS BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations in primary colorectal adenocarcinomas and their corresponding metastases. Clin. Cancer Res. 16 (2010), 790–799.
33. [33] Kidd, E.A., Grigsby, P.W., Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity of cervical cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14 (2008), 5236–5241.
34. [34] Huyge, V., Garcia, C., Alexiou, J., et al. Heterogeneity of metabolic response to systemic therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.) 22 (2010), 818–827.
35. [35] Engelman, J.A., Settleman, J., Acquired resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors during cancer therapy. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 18 (2008), 73–79.
36. [36] Kosaka, T., Yatabe, Y., Endoh, H., et al. Analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and acquired resistance to gefitinib. Clin. Cancer Res. 12 (2006), 5764–5769.
37. [37] Turke, A.B., Zejnullahu, K., Wu, Y.L., et al. Preexistence and clonal selection of MET amplification in EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cancer Cell 17 (2010), 77–88.
38. [38] Curtis, C., Shah, S.P., Chin, S.F., et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486 (2012), 346–352.
39. [39] Heist, R.S., Engelman, J.A., SnapShot: non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell, 21, 2012 448, e442.
40. [40] The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 489 (2012), 519–525.
41. [41] The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 511 (2014), 543–550.
42. [42] Bai, H., Wang, Z., Chen, K., et al. Influence of chemotherapy on EGFR mutation status among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 30 (2012), 3077–3083.
43. [43] Gerlinger, M., Rowan, A.J., Horswell, S., et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 366 (2012), 883–892.
44. [44] Schmitt, M.W., Loeb, L.A., Salk, J.J., The influence of subclonal resistance mutations on targeted cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13 (2016), 335–347.
45. [45] Yoon, H.J., Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Repeat biopsy for mutational analysis of non-small cell lung cancers resistant to previous chemotherapy: adequacy and complications. Radiology 265 (2012), 939–948.
46. [46] Iqbal, R., Kramer, G.M., Verwer, E.E., et al. Multiparametric analysis of the relationship between tumor hypoxia and perfusion with 18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside and 15O-H2O PET. J. Nucl. Med. 57 (2016), 530–535.
47. [47] Ohno, Y., Koyama, H., Lee, H.Y., Yoshikawa, T., Sugimura, K., Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI for lung cancer staging. J. Thorac. Imaging 31 (2016), 215–227.
48. [48] Einenkel, J., Braumann, U.D., Horn, L.C., et al. Evaluation of the invasion front pattern of squamous cell cervical carcinoma by measuring classical and discrete compactness. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph 31 (2007), 428–435.
49. [49] Diciotti, S., Lombardo, S., Coppini, G., Grassi, L., Falchini, M., Mascalchi, M., The LoG characteristic scale: a consistent measurement of lung nodule size in CT imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29 (2010), 397–409.
50. [50] Jirapatnakul, A.C., Fotin, S.V., Reeves, A.P., Biancardi, A.M., Yankelevitz, D.F., Henschke, C.I., Automated nodule location and size estimation using a multi-scale Laplacian of Gaussian filtering approach. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009 (2009), 1028–1031.
51. [51] Detterbeck, F.C., Gibson, C.J., Turning gray: the natural history of lung cancer over time. J. Thorac. Oncol. 3 (2008), 781–792.
52. [52] Tan, B.B., Flaherty, K.R., Kazerooni, E.A., Iannettoni, M.D., The solitary pulmonary nodule. Chest 123 (2003), 89S–96S.
53. [53] Labby, Z.E., Armato, S.G. 3rd, Dignam, J.J., Straus, C., Kindler, H.L., Nowak, A.K., Lung volume measurements as a surrogate marker for patient response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J. Thorac. Oncol. 8 (2013), 478–486.
54. [54] Labby, Z.E., Straus, C., Caligiuri, P., et al. Variability of tumor area measurements for response assessment in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Med. Phys., 40, 2013, 081916.
55. [55] Lee, H.Y., Hyun, S.H., Lee, K.S., et al. Volume-based parameter of 18)F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17 (2010), 2787–2794.
56. [56] Lee, J.H., Lee, H.Y., Ahn, M.J., et al. Volume-based growth tumor kinetics as a prognostic biomarker for patients with EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma undergoing EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy: a case control study. Cancer Imaging, 16, 2016, 5.
57. [57] de Hoop, B., Gietema, H., van de Vorst, S., Murphy, K., van Klaveren, R.J., Prokop, M., Pulmonary ground-glass nodules: increase in mass as an early indicator of growth. Radiology 255 (2010), 199–206.
58. [58] Bae, K.T., Fuangtharnthip, P., Prasad, S.R., Joe, B.N., Heiken, J.P., Adrenal masses: CT characterization with histogram analysis method. Radiology 228 (2003), 735–742.
59. [59] Yang, J., Zhang, L., Fave, X.J., et al. Uncertainty analysis of quantitative imaging features extracted from contrast-enhanced CT in lung tumors. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph 48 (2016), 1–8.
60. [60] Kamiya, A., Murayama, S., Kamiya, H., Yamashiro, T., Oshiro, Y., Tanaka, N., Kurtosis and skewness assessments of solid lung nodule density histograms: differentiating malignant from benign nodules on CT. Jpn. J. Radiol. 32 (2014), 14–21.
61. [61] Kang, H., Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., Kim, J.H., Imaging-based tumor treatment response evaluation: review of conventional new, and emerging concepts. Korean J. Radiol. 13 (2012), 371–390.
62. [62] Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., Ground-glass opacity nodules: histopathology imaging evaluation, and clinical implications. J. Thorac. Imaging 26 (2011), 106–118.
63. [63] Min, J.H., Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Stepwise evolution from a focal pure pulmonary ground-glass opacity nodule into an invasive lung adenocarcinoma: an observation for more than 10 years. Lung Cancer 69 (2010), 123–126.
64. [64] Eguchi, T., Yoshizawa, A., Kawakami, S., et al. Tumor size and computed tomography attenuation of pulmonary pure ground-glass nodules are useful for predicting pathological invasiveness. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e97867.
65. [65] Lee, H.Y., Choi, Y.L., Lee, K.S., et al. Pure ground-glass opacity neoplastic lung nodules: histopathology imaging, and management. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 202 (2014), W224–233.
66. [66] Ikeda, K., Awai, K., Mori, T., Kawanaka, K., Yamashita, Y., Nomori, H., Differential diagnosis of ground-glass opacity nodules: CT number analysis by three-dimensional computerized quantification. Chest 132 (2007), 984–990.
67. [67] Son, J.Y., Lee, H.Y., Lee, K.S., et al. Quantitative CT analysis of pulmonary ground-glass opacity nodules for the distinction of invasive adenocarcinoma from pre-invasive or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e104066.
68. [68] Bak, S.H., Lee, H.Y., Kim, J.H., et al. Quantitative CT scanning analysis of pure ground-glass opacity nodules predicts further CT scanning change. Chest 149 (2016), 180–191.
69. [69] Cook, G.J., Yip, C., Siddique, M., 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 (2013), 19–26.
70. [70] Pyka, T., Bundschuh, R.A., Andratschke, N., et al. Textural features in pre-treatment [F18]-FDG-PET/CT are correlated with risk of local recurrence and disease-specific survival in early stage NSCLC patients receiving primary stereotactic radiation therapy. Radiat. Oncol., 10, 2015, 100.
71. [71] Al-Kadi, O.S., Watson, D., Texture analysis of aggressive and nonaggressive lung tumor CE CT images. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 55 (2008), 1822–1830.
72. [72] Fried, D.V., Tucker, S.L., Zhou, S., et al. Prognostic value and reproducibility of pretreatment CT texture features in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 90 (2014), 834–842.
73. [73] Ganeshan, B., Abaleke, S., Young, R.C., Chatwin, C.R., Miles, K.A., Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage. Cancer Imaging 10 (2010), 137–143.
74. [74] Ganeshan, B., Panayiotou, E., Burnand, K., Dizdarevic, S., Miles, K., Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur. Radiol. 22 (2012), 796–802.
75. [75] O'Connor, J.P., Rose, C.J., Waterton, J.C., Carano, R.A., Parker, G.J., Jackson, A., Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin. Cancer Res. 21 (2015), 249–257.
76. [76] Wu, J., Gensheimer, M.F., Dong, X., et al. Robust intratumor partitioning to identify high-risk subregions in lung cancer: a pilot study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 95 (2016), 1504–1512.
77. [77] Wu, J., Gensheimer, M.F., Dong, X., et al. Robust intratumor partitioning to identify high-risk subregions in lung cancer: a pilot study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 95 (2016), 1504–1512.
78. [78] Tixier, F., Le Rest, C.C., Hatt, M., 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 (2011), 369–378.
79. [79] Win, T., Miles, K.A., Janes, S.M., et al. Tumor heterogeneity and permeability as measured on the CT component of PET/CT predict survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 19 (2013), 3591–3599.
80. [80] Kido, S., Kuriyama, K., Higashiyama, M., Kasugai, T., Kuroda, C., Fractal analysis of internal and peripheral textures of small peripheral bronchogenic carcinomas in thin-section computed tomography: comparison of bronchioloalveolar cell carcinomas with nonbronchioloalveolar cell carcinomas. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 27 (2003), 56–61.
81. [81] Lennon, F.E., Cianci, G.C., Cipriani, N.A., et al. Lung cancer-a fractal viewpoint. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12 (2015), 664–675.
82. [82] Wang, C., Subashi, E., Yin, F.F., Chang, Z., Dynamic fractal signature dissimilarity analysis for therapeutic response assessment using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Med. Phys. 43 (2016), 1335–1347.
83. [83] Kuo, M.D., Jamshidi, N., Behind the numbers: decoding molecular phenotypes with radiogenomics–guiding principles and technical considerations. Radiology 270 (2014), 320–325.
84. [84] Kwak, E.L., Bang, Y.J., Camidge, D.R., et al. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 363 (2010), 1693–1703.
85. [85] Pirker, R., Filipits, M., Personalized treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 35 (2016), 141–150.
86. [86] Nair, V.S., Gevaert, O., Davidzon, G., et al. Prognostic PET 18F-FDG uptake imaging features are associated with major oncogenomic alterations in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 72 (2012), 3725–3734.
87. [87] Dewhirst, M.W., Chi, J.T., Understanding the tumor microenvironment and radioresistance by combining functional imaging with global gene expression. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 23 (2013), 296–305.
88. [88] Yoon, H.J., Sohn, I., Cho, J.H., et al. Decoding tumor phenotypes for ALK ROS1, and RET fusions in lung adenocarcinoma using a radiomics approach. Medicine (Baltim.), 94, 2015, e1753.
89. [89] Jeong, C.J., Lee, H.Y., Han, J., et al. Role of imaging biomarkers in predicting anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive lung adenocarcinoma. Clin. Nucl. Med. 40 (2015), e34–39.
90. [90] Zhao, B., Tan, Y., Tsai, W.Y., et al. Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci. Rep., 6, 2016, 23428.
91. [91] Leijenaar, R.T., Nalbantov, G., Carvalho, S., et al. The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci. Rep., 5, 2015, 11075.
92. [92] van Velden, F.H., Kramer, G.M., Frings, V., et al. Repeatability of radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol. Imaging Biol. 18 (2016), 788–795.
93. [93] Fave, X., Mackin, D., Yang, J., et al. Can radiomics features be reproducibly measured from CBCT images for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Med. Phys. 42 (2015), 6784–6797.
94. [94] Nyflot, M.J., Yang, F., Byrd, D., Bowen, S.R., Sandison, G.A., Kinahan, P.E., Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards. J. Med. Imaging (Bellingham), 2, 2015, 041002.
95. [95] Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P., Aerts, H.J., Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci. Rep., 5, 2015, 13087.
96. [96] Reyes-Aldasoro, C.C., Bhalerao, A., Volumetric texture description and discriminant feature selection for MRI. Inf. Process Med. Imaging 18 (2003), 282–293.
97. [97] Antunes, J., Viswanath, S., Rusu, M., et al. Radiomics analysis on FLT-PET/MRI for characterization of early treatment response in renal cell carcinoma: a proof-of-concept study. Transl. Oncol. 9 (2016), 155–162.
98. [98] Condon, B.R., Patterson, J., Wyper, D., Jenkins, A., Hadley, D.M., Image non-uniformity in magnetic resonance imaging: its magnitude and methods for its correction. Br. J. Radiol. 60 (1987), 83–87.
99. [99] Vovk, U., Pernus, F., Likar, B., A review of methods for correction of intensity inhomogeneity in MRI. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 26 (2007), 405–421.
100. [100] Alic, L., Niessen, W.J., Veenland, J.F., Quantification of heterogeneity as a biomarker in tumor imaging: a systematic review. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e110300.
101. [101] Yu, K.H., Snyder, M., Omics profiling in precision oncology. Mol. Cell Proteom. 15 (2016), 2525–2536.
102. [102] Opulencia, P., Channin, D.S., Raicu, D.S., Furst, J.D., Mapping, L.I.D.C., RadLex: and lung nodule image features. J. Digit. Imaging 24 (2011), 256–270.
103. [103] Aerts, H.J., The potential of radiomic-based phenotyping in precision medicine: a review. JAMA Oncol., 2016, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2631 (ahead of print).