Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: A review of technology and methodological procedures

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 90, Issue 1070, 2017, Pages

  Larue, Ruben T H M ^a   Defraene, Gilles ^b   De Ruysscher, Dirk ^a   Lambin, Philippe ^a   Van Elmpt, Wouter ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; CALIBRATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INFORMATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE RADIOMICS; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SOFTWARE; STANDARDIZATION; TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION; ULTRASOUND; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE PROCESSING; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85011697926     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160665     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-47. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
2. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(Suppl 1): 122S-50S. doi: https://doi.org/10.2967/ jnumed.108.057307
3. de Bruijne M. Machine learning approaches in medical image analysis: from detection to diagnosis. Med Image Anal 2016; 33: 94-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. media.2016.06.032
4. Abe Y, Hanai K, Nakano M, Ohkubo Y, Hasizume T, Kakizaki T, et al. A computeraided diagnosis (CAD) system in lung cancer screening with computed tomography. Anticancer Res 2005; 25: 483-8.
5. Li F. Potential clinical impact of advanced imaging and computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiology: importance of radiologists role and successful observer study. Radiol Phys Technol 2015; 8: 161-73. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s12194-015-0319-0
6. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout RG, Granton P, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 441-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejca.2011.11.036
7. Fried DV, Tucker SL, Zhou S, Liao Z, Mawlawi O, Ibbott G, 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 2014; 90: 834-42. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.020
8. Balagurunathan Y, Kumar V, Gu Y, Kim J, Wang H, Liu Y, et al. Test-retest reproducibility analysis of lung CT image features. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27: 805-23. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9716-x
9. Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L, Fried D, Yang J, Taylor B, et al. Measuring computed tomography scanner variability of radiomics features. Invest Radiol 2015; 50: 757-65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ rli.0000000000000180
10. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Qi J, Xie C, Lu L, et al. Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 23428. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep23428
11. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, Guo P, Ginsberg MS, Lefkowitz RA, et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2009; 252: 263-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.2522081593
12. Fave X, Mackin D, Yang J, Zhang J, Fried D, Balter P, et al. Can radiomics features be reproducibly measured from CBCT images for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? Med Phys 2015; 42: 6784-97. doi: https://doi. org/10.1118/1.4934826
13. Oliver JA, Budzevich M, Zhang GG, Dilling TJ, Latifi K, Moros EG. Variability of image features computed from conventional and respiratory-gated PET/CT images of lung cancer. Transl Oncol 2015; 8: 524-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2015.11.013
14. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, van Elmpt WJ, Parmar C, Hoekstra OS, et al. Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and interobserver variability. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 1391-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/ 0284186X.2013.812798
15. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 693-700. doi: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.099127
16. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 2010; 49: 1012-6. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3109/0284186x.2010.498437
17. van Velden FH, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of radiomic features in non-smallcell lung cancer [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol Imaging Biol 2016; 18: 788-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2
18. Yan J, Chu-Shern JL, Loi HY, Khor LK, Sinha AK, Quek ST, et al. Impact of image reconstruction settings on texture features in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2015; 56: 1667-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.2967/ jnumed.115.156927
19. Yip S, McCall K, Aristophanous M, Chen AB, Aerts HJ, Berbeco R. Comparison of texture features derived from static and respiratorygated PET images in non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS One 2014; 9: e115510. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0115510
20. Grootjans W, Tixier F, van der Vos CS, Vriens D, Le Rest CC, Bussink J, et al. The impact of optimal respiratory gating and image noise on evaluation of intratumor heterogeneity on 18F-FDG PET imaging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2016; 57: 1692-8.
21. Doumou G, Siddique M, Tsoumpas C, Goh V, Cook GJ. The precision of textural analysis in (18)F-FDG-PET scans of oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 2805-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3681-8
22. Leijenaar RT, Nalbantov G, Carvalho S, van Elmpt WJ, Troost EG, Boellaard R, et al. The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 11075. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep11075
23. Lu L, Lv W, Jiang J, Ma J, Feng Q, Rahmim A, et al. Robustness of radiomic features in [11C]choline and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: impact of segmentation and discretization. Mol Imaging Biol 2016; 18: 935-45.
24. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al; European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 328-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x
25. Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, Veeraraghavan H, Fehr D, 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: 2840-50. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00330-015-3701-8
26. Gnep K, Fargeas A, Gutiérrez-Carvajal RE, Commandeur F, Mathieu R, Ospina JD, et al. Haralick textural features on T2-weighted MRI are associated with biochemical recurrence following radiotherapy for peripheral zone prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45; 103-17. doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/jmri.25335.
27. Weygand J, Fuller CD, Ibbott GS, Mohamed ASR, Ding Y, Yang J, et al. Spatial precision in magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiation therapy: the role of geometric distortion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95: 1304-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijrobp.2016.02.059
28. Sudarshan VK, Mookiah MR, Acharya UR, Chandran V, Molinari F, Fujita H, et al. Application of wavelet techniques for cancer diagnosis using ultrasound images: a review. Comput Biol Med 2016; 69: 97-111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compbiomed.2015.12.006
29. Andrekute K, Linkeviciute G, Raišutis R, Valiukeviciene S, Makštiene J. Automatic differential diagnosis of melanocytic skin tumors using ultrasound data. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2834-43. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.07.026
30. Wu MH, Chen CN, Chen KY, Ho MC, Tai HC, Wang YH, et al. Quantitative analysis of echogenicity for patients with thyroid nodules. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 35632. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/srep35632
31. Song G, Xue F, Zhang C. A model using texture features to differentiate the nature of thyroid nodules on sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2015; 34: 1753-60. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.7863/ultra.15.14.10045
32. Moon WK, Huang YS, Lo CM, Huang CS, Bae MS, Kim WH, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for distinguishing between triplenegative breast cancer and fibroadenomas based on ultrasound texture features. Med Phys 2015; 42: 3024-35. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1118/1.4921123
33. Ardakani AA, Gharbali A, Mohammadi A. Classification of breast tumors using sonographic texture analysis. J Ultrasound Med 2015; 34: 225-31. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.7863/ultra.34.2.225
34. Nadeau MJ, Desrochers A, Lamontagne M, Lariviere C, Gagnon DH. Quantitative ultrasound imaging of Achilles tendon integrity in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals: reliability and minimal detectable change. J Foot Ankle Res 2016; 9:30. doi: https://doi. org/10.1186/s13047-016-0164-3
35. Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, Goh V, Chicklore S, Roy A, 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 2013; 54: 19-26. doi: https:// doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.107375
36. Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Narayan V, Hou Y, Grossmann P, Lee SW, et al. Radiomic phenotype features predict pathological response in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2015; 119: 480-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.004
37. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, Rios Velazquez E, Leijenaar RT, Hermann G, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2015; 114: 345-50. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015
38. Desseroit MC, Visvikis D, Tixier F, Majdoub M, Perdrisot R, Guillevin R, et al. Development of a nomogram combining clinical staging with (18)F-FDG PET/CT image features in non-small-cell lung cancer stage I-III. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43: 1477-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00259-016-3325-5
39. Huang Y, Liu Z, He L, Chen X, Pan D, Ma Z, et al. Radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for the prediction of disease-free survival in early-stage (I or II) non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2016; 281: 947-57.
40. Liang C, Huang Y, He L, Chen X, Ma Z, Dong D, et al. The development and validation of a CT-based radiomics signature for the preoperative discrimination of stage I-II and stage III-IV colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 31401-12. doi: https:// doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8919
41. Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, Raunig DL, Gatsonis C, Huang EP, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology 2015; 277: 813-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.2015142202
42. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC; Group. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011; 258: 906-14. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1148/radiol.10100799
43. Eminowicz G, McCormack M. Variability of clinical target volume delineation for definitive radiotherapy in cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 2015; 117: 542-7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.10.007
44. Echegaray S, Gevaert O, Shah R, Kamaya A, Louie J, Kothary N, et al. Core samples for radiomics features that are insensitive to tumor segmentation: method and pilot study using CT images of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2015; 2: 041011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041011
45. Balagurunathan Y, Gu Y, Wang H, Kumar V, Grove O, Hawkins S, et al. Reproducibility and prognosis of quantitative features extracted from CT images. Transl Oncol 2014; 7: 72-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1593/ tlo.13844
46. Parmar C, Rios Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Jermoumi M, Carvalho S, Mak RH, et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PLoS One 2014; 9: e102107. doi: https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102107
47. Velazquez ER, Parmar C, Jermoumi M, Mak RH, van Baardwijk A, Fennessy FM, et al. Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-slicer. Sci Rep 2013; 3: 3529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03529
48. van Baardwijk A, Bosmans G, Boersma L, Buijsen J, Wanders S, Hochstenbag M, et al. PET-CT-based auto-contouring in nonsmall-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 771-78. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.067
49. Bezdek JC, Ehrlich R, Full W. FCM: The fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Comput Geosci 1984; 10: 191-203.
50. Hatt M, Lamare F, Boussion N, Turzo A, Collet C, Salzenstein F, et al. Fuzzy hidden Markov chains segmentation for volume determination and quantitation in PET. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52: 3467-91. doi: https://doi. org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/12/010
51. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009; 28: 881-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMI.2008.2012036
52. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77: 301-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.018
53. Hatt M, Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, Lambin P, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 1690-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.2967/ jnumed.111.092767
54. Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Robustness of intratumour 18FFDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40: 1662-71. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00259-013-2486-8
55. Sorensen L, Nielsen M, Lo P, Ashraf H, Pedersen JH, de Bruijne M. Texture-based analysis of COPD: a data-driven approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012; 31: 70-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2011.2164931
56. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC, Church TR, Fagerstrom RM, Galen B, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011; 258: 243-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.10091808
57. Hawkins S, Wang H, Liu Y, Garcia A, Stringfield O, Krewer H, et al. Predicting malignant nodules from screening CTscans. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 2120-8. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.07.002
58. Huang K, Senthi S, Palma DA, Spoelstra FO, Warner A, Slotman BJ, et al. High-risk CT features for detection of local recurrence after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2013; 109: 51-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.06.047
59. Peulen H, Mantel F, Guckenberger M, Belderbos J, Werner-Wasik M, Hope A, et al. Validation of high-risk computed tomography features for detection of local recurrence after stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96: 134-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.003
60. Cunliffe A, Armato SG 3rd, 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: 1048-56. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.11.030
61. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Carvalho S, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014; 5: 4006. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1038/ncomms5006
62. van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 1636-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1845-6
63. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb 1973; 3: 610-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ tsmc.1973.4309314
64. Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb 1989; 19: 1264-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/21.44046
65. Sun C, Wee WG. Neighboring gray level dependence matrix for texture classification. Comput Vision Graph 1982; 23: 341-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-189x(83) 90032-4
66. Galloway MM. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Vision Graph 1975; 4: 172-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0146-664x(75)80008-6
67. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, 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 2011; 52: 369-78. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.2967/jnumed.110.082404
68. Vallieres M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I. A radiomics model from joint FDGPET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60: 5471-96. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5471
69. Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA. Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 2013; 266: 326-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.12112428
70. Ng F, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Goh V. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest crosssectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 342-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejrad.2012.10.023
71. Fave X, Cook M, Frederick A, Zhang L, Yang J, Fried D, et al. Preliminary investigation into sources of uncertainty in quantitative imaging features. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015; 44: 54-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compmedimag.2015.04.006
72. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, Berglund A, Eschrich SA, Schabath MB, et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30: 1234-48. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010
73. Zhang L, FriedDV, Fave XJ,Hunter LA, Yang J, Court LE. IBEX: an open infrastructure software platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. Med Phys 2015; 42: 1341-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/ 1.4908210
74. Ganeshan B, Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13: 140-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0015
75. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016; 278: 563-77. doi: https://doi. org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169
76. Fang YH, Lin CY, Shih MJ, Wang HM, Ho TY, Liao CT, et al. Development and evaluation of an open-source software package "CGITA" for quantifying tumor heterogeneity with molecular images. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 248505. doi: https://doi. org/10.1155/2014/248505
77. Szczypinski PM, Strzelecki M, Materka A, Klepaczko A. MaZda-A software package for image texture analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2009; 94: 66-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.08.005
78. Deasy JO, Blanco AI, Clark VH. CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research. Med Phys 2003; 30: 979-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1568978
79. Kira K, Rendell LA. The feature selection problem: traditional methods and a new algorithm. AAAI-92 proceedings; 1992. pp. 129-34.
80. Basu S, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, Gu Y, Kumar V, Choi J, et al. Developing a classifier model for lung tumours in CT-scan images. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb 2011: 1306-12.
81. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 13087. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ srep13087
82. Kohavi R, John GH. Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artif Intell 1997; 97: 273-324. doi: https//doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00043-x
83. Song F, Guo Z, Mei D. Feature selection using principal component analysis. International Conference System Science, Engineering Design Manufacturing Informatization; 2010.
84. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1995; 57: 289-300.
85. Parmar C, Leijenaar RT, Grossmann P, Rios Velazquez E, Bussink J, Rietveld D, et al. Radiomic feature clusters and prognostic signatures specific for lung and head & neck cancer. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 11044. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep11044
86. Hoeben BA, Starmans MH, Leijenaar RT, Dubois LJ, van der Kogel AJ, Kaanders JH, et al. Systematic analysis of 18F-FDG PET and metabolism, proliferation and hypoxia markers for classification of head and neck tumors. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-130
87. Gao X, Chu C, Li Y, Lu P, Wang W, Liu W, et al. The method and efficacy of support vector machine classifiers based on texture features and multi-resolution histogram from (18)F-FDG PET-CT images for the evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 312-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejrad.2014.11.006
88. Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1996; 58: 267-88.
89. Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L, Tian J, Liang CS, Chen X, et al. Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2157-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/ JCO.2015.65.9128
90. Ng AY. Feature selection, L1 vs L2 regularization, and rotational invariance. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning; 2004.
91. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Rietveld D, Rietbergen MM, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Radiomic machine-learning classifiers for prognostic biomarkers of head and neck cancer. Front Oncol 2015; 5: 272. doi: https:// doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00272
92. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMC Med 2015; 13:1. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z
93. Benedict SH, El Naqa I, Klein EE. Introduction to big data in radiation oncology: exploring opportunities for research, quality assessment, and clinical care. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95: 871-2. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.358
94. Panth KM, Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Lieuwes NG, Yaromina A, Dubois L, et al. Is there a causal relationship between genetic changes and radiomics-based image features? An in vivo preclinical experiment with doxycycline inducible GADD34 tumor cells. Radiother Oncol 2015; 116: 462-6. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.06.013
95. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, Adler AS, Gollub J, Chen X, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 675-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1306