Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels

Medical Physics

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 1050-1062

  Shafiq Ul hassan, Muhammad ^a,b   Zhang, Geoffrey G ^a,b   Latifi, Kujtim ^a,b   Ullah, Ghanim ^a   Hunt, Dylan C ^b   Balagurunathan, Yoganand ^b   Abdalah, Mahmoud Abrahem ^b   Schabath, Matthew B ^b   Goldgof, Dmitry G ^c   Mackin, Dennis ^d   Court, Laurence Edward ^d   Gillies, Robert James ^b   Moros, Eduardo Gerardo ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

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

^c University of South Florida   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

computed tomography; features; gray levels; phantom; radiomics; texture; voxel size

Indexed keywords

ABS RESINS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MEDICAL IMAGING; PIXELS; PROJECTILES; SCANNING; STYRENE;

COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DISCRETIZATIONS; FEATURE; GRAY-LEVEL; PHANTOMS; RADIOMIC; RESAMPLING; SLICE THICKNESS; TEXTURE FEATURES; VOXEL SIZE;

PHANTOMS;

ALGORITHM; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; DEVICES; IMAGING PHANTOM; PROCEDURES; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ALGORITHMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; TOMOGRAPHY SCANNERS, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 85016313953     PISSN: 00942405     EISSN: 24734209     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/MP.12123     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:441–446.
2. Gillies RJ, Anderson AR, Gatenby RA, Morse DL. The biology under-lying molecular imaging in oncology: From genome to anatome and back again. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:517–521.
3. Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006–4013.
4. 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;18:821–830.
5. Lee H-J, Kim YT, Kang CH, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in lung adenocarcinomas: Relationship with CT characteristics and histologic subtypes. Radiology. 2013;268:254–264.
6. Karlo CA, Paolo PLD, Chaim J, et al. Radiogenomics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Associations between CT imaging features and muta-tions. Radiology. 2014;270:464–471.
7. Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang CD, et al. Non–small cell lung cancer: Identify-ing prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data—methods and preliminary results. Radiology. 2012;264:387–396.
8. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity character-ized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369–378.
9. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2015;114:345–350.
10. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, et al. Radiomics: The process and the chal-lenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1234–1248.
11. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai W-Y, et al. Reproducibility of radiomics for deci-phering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23428.
12. 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 (Stockholm, Sweden). 2010;49:1012–1016.
13. Ganeshan B, Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer imaging. 2013;13:140–149.
14. Nyflot MJ, Yang F, Byrd D, Bowen SR, Sandison GA, Kinahan PE. Quantitative radiomics: Impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards. J Med Imaging (Bellingham, Wash.). 2015;2:041002.
15. Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L, et al. Measuring computed tomography scanner variability of radiomics features. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:757– 765.
16. Fave X, Mackin D, Yang J, et al. Can radiomics features be reproducibly measured from CBCT images for patients with non-small cell lung can-cer? Med Phys. 2015;42:6784–6797.
17. Basu S, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, et al. Developing a classifier model for lung tumors in CT-scan images. I. E. International Conference on Sys-tems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), IEEE. 2011;1306–1312.
18. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Schwartz LH, Lu L. Exploring variability in CT characterization of tumors: A preliminary phantom study. Transl Oncol. 2014;7:88–93.
19. Yip SS, Aerts HJ. Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:R150–R166.
20. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recogn. 2009;42:1162–1171.
21. Vaidya M, Creach KM, Frye J, Dehdashti F, Bradley JD, El Naqa I. Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:239–245.
22. Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Robustness of intratumour (1)(8)F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1662–1671.
23. Leijenaar RT, 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. 2015;5: 11075.
24. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;3:610–621.
25. Haralick RM. Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc IEEE. 1979;67:786–804.
26. O JA, Aborisade DO, Amole AO, Durodola AO. Comparative analysis of textural features derived from GLCM for ultrasound liver image clas-sification. Int J Comput Trends Technol. 2014;V11:239–244.
27. Kurani AS, Xu D-H, Furst J, Raicu DS. Presented at the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computer Graphics and Imaging, Kauai, Hawaii-USA, CGIM; 2004.
28. Oliver JA, Budzevich M, Zhang GG, Dilling TJ, Latifi K, Moros EG. Variability of image features computed from conventional and respira-tory-gated PET/CT images of lung cancer. Trans Oncol. 2015;8:524– 534.
29. Galloway MM. Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Graph Image Process. 1975;4:172–179.
30. Chu A, Sehgal CM, Greenleaf JF. Use of gray value distribution of run lengths for texture analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett. 1990;11:415–419.
31. Dasarathy BV, Holder EB. Image characterizations based on joint gray level—run length distributions. Pattern Recogn Lett. 1991;12: 497–502.
32. Thibault G, Fertil B, Navarro C, et al. Texture indexes and gray level size zone matrix application to cell nuclei classification. 10th International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Information Processing. 2009.
33. Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural prop-erties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1989;19:1264–1274.
34. Sarkar N, Chaudhuri BB. An efficient approach to estimate fractal dimension of textural images. Pattern Recogn. 1992;25:1035–1041.
35. Jin XC, Ong SH, Jayasooriah. A practical method for estimating fractal dimension. Pattern Recogn Lett. 1995;16:457–464.
36. Hunter LA, Krafft S, Stingo F, et al. High quality machine-robust image features: Identification in nonsmall cell lung cancer computed tomogra-phy images. Med Phys. 2013;40:121916.
37. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Mozeg D. Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:374–383.
38. Cook GJR, 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. 2013;54:19–26.
39. Fave X, Zhang L, Yang J, et al. Impact of image preprocessing on the volume dependence and prognostic potential of radiomics features in non-small cell lung cancer. Trans Cancer Res. 2016;5:349–363.
40. Brooks FJ. On some misconceptions about tumor heterogeneity quantifi-cation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1292–1294.
41. Lu L, Lv W, Jiang J, 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;18:935–945.