Top

Published in:

01-01-2020 | Computed Tomography | Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Radiomic feature reproducibility in contrast-enhanced CT of the pancreas is affected by variabilities in scan parameters and manual segmentation

Authors: Rikiya Yamashita, Thomas Perrin, Jayasree Chakraborty, Joanne F. Chou, Natally Horvat, Maura A. Koszalka, Abhishek Midya, Mithat Gonen, Peter Allen, William R. Jarnagin, Amber L. Simpson, Richard K. G. Do

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to measure the reproducibility of radiomic features in pancreatic parenchyma and ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) in patients who underwent consecutive contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scans.

Methods

In this IRB-approved and HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, 37 pairs of scans from 37 unique patients who underwent CECTs within a 2-week interval were included in the analysis of the reproducibility of features derived from pancreatic parenchyma, and a subset of 18 pairs of scans were further analyzed for the reproducibility of features derived from PDAC. In each patient, pancreatic parenchyma and pancreatic tumor (when present) were manually segmented by two radiologists independently. A total of 266 radiomic features were extracted from the pancreatic parenchyma and tumor region and also the volume and diameter of the tumor. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was calculated to assess feature reproducibility for each patient in three scenarios: (1) different radiologists, same CECT; (2) same radiologist, different CECTs; and (3) different radiologists, different CECTs.

Results

Among pancreatic parenchyma-derived features, using a threshold of CCC > 0.90, 58/266 (21.8%) and 48/266 (18.1%) features met the threshold for scenario 1, 14/266 (5.3%) and 15/266 (5.6%) for scenario 2, and 14/266 (5.3%) and 10/266 (3.8%) for scenario 3. Among pancreatic tumor-derived features, 11/268 (4.1%) and 17/268 (6.3%) features met the threshold for scenario 1, 1/268 (0.4%) and 5/268 (1.9%) features met the threshold for scenario 2, and no features for scenario 3 met the threshold, respectively.

Conclusions

Variations between CECT scans affected radiomic feature reproducibility to a greater extent than variation in segmentation. A smaller number of pancreatic tumor-derived radiomic features were reproducible compared with pancreatic parenchyma-derived radiomic features under the same conditions.

Key Points

• For pancreatic-derived radiomic features from contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), fewer than 25% are reproducible (with a threshold of CCC < 0.9) in a clinical heterogeneous dataset.

• Variations between CECT scans affected the number of reproducible radiomic features to a greater extent than variations in radiologist segmentation.

• A smaller number of pancreatic tumor-derived radiomic features were reproducible compared with pancreatic parenchyma-derived radiomic features under the same conditions.

Available only for authorised users

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442 CrossRef

Garrido-Laguna I, Hidalgo M (2015) Pancreatic cancer: from state-of-the-art treatments to promising novel therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12:319–334. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.53 CrossRefPubMed

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169 CrossRefPubMed

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036 CrossRefPubMed

Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006 CrossRefPubMed

Sandrasegaran K, Lin Y, Asare-Sawiri M et al (2019) CT texture analysis of pancreatic cancer. Eur Radiol 29(3):1067–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5662-1

Chen X, Oshima K, Schott D et al (2017) Assessment of treatment response during chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer based on quantitative radiomic analysis of daily CTs: an exploratory study. PLoS One 12:e0178961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178961 CrossRefPubMed

Chakraborty J, Langdon-Embry L, Cunanan KM et al (2017) Preliminary study of tumor heterogeneity in imaging predicts two year survival in pancreatic cancer patients. PLoS One 12:e0188022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188022 CrossRefPubMed

Kim BR, Kim JH, Ahn SJ et al (2019) CT prediction of resectability and prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant treatment using image findings and texture analysis. Eur Radiol 29(1):362–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5574-0

10.

Yun G, Kim YH, Lee YJ et al (2018) Tumor heterogeneity of pancreas head cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: association with survival outcomes after curative resection. Sci Rep 8:7226. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25627-x CrossRefPubMed

11.

Attiyeh MA, Chakraborty J, Doussot A et al (2018) Survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by quantitative computed tomography image analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 25:1034–1042. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6323-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Berenguer R, Pastor-Juan MDR, Canales-Vázquez J et al (2018) Radiomics of CT features may be nonreproducible and redundant: influence of CT acquisition parameters. Radiology 288(2):407–415. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172361

13.

Perrin T, Midya A, Yamashita R et al (2018) Short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver malignancies on contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43(12):3271–3278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1600-6

14.

van Timmeren JE, Leijenaar RTH, van Elmpt W et al (2016) Test-retest data for radiomics feature stability analysis: generalizable or study-specific? Tomography 2:361–365. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2016.00208 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Summers RM (2017) Texture analysis in radiology: does the emperor have no clothes? Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:342–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0950-1 CrossRef

16.

Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S et al (2012) Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1234–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai W-Y et al (2016) Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci Rep 6:23428. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23428 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Pavic M, Bogowicz M, Würms X et al (2018) Influence of inter-observer delineation variability on radiomics stability in different tumor sites. Acta Oncol 57(8):1070–1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2018.1445283

20.

Mingqiang Y, Kidiyo K, Joseph R (2008) A survey of shape feature extraction techniques. Peng-Yeng Yin. Pattern Recognition, IN-TECH, pp 43–90. https://doi.org/10.5772/6237

21.

Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:610–621. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309314 CrossRef

22.

Yang X, Tridandapani S, Beitler JJ et al (2012) Ultrasound GLCM texture analysis of radiation-induced parotid-gland injury in head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy: an in vivo study of late toxicity. Med Phys 39:5732–5739. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4747526 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Banik S, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL (2013) Measures of angular spread and entropy for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8:121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0681-x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tang X (1998) Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans Image Process 7:1602–1609. https://doi.org/10.1109/83.725367 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn 29:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-3203(95)00067-4 CrossRef

26.

Pietikäinen M, Hadid A, Zhao G, Ahonen T (2011) Local binary patterns for still images. In: Computer vision using local binary patterns. Springer, London, pp 13–47CrossRef

27.

Mehta R, Egiazarian K (2013) Rotated local binary pattern (RLBP): rotation invariant texture descriptor. In 2nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods, ICPRAM 2013, Barcelona, Spain, 15.-18.2.2013, pp 497-502. (International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE

28.

Al-Kadi OS, Watson D (2008) Texture analysis of aggressive and nonaggressive lung tumor CE CT images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55:1822–1830. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2008.919735 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Costa AF, Humpire-Mamani G, Traina AJM (2012) An efficient algorithm for fractal analysis of textures. 25th SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images, Ouro Preto, pp 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2012.15

30.

Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S et al (2012) Statistical measures of orientation of texture for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer. J Electron Imaging 21:033010–033011. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.21.3.033010 CrossRef

31.

Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S, et al (2012) Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms using statistical measures of orientation of texture. Proc. SPIE 8315, Medical Imaging 2012: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 831521 (23 February 2012). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.910937

32.

Chakraborty J, Midya A, Mukhopadhyay S, Sadhu A (2013) Automatic characterization of masses in mammograms. 6th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Hangzhou, pp 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1109/BMEI.2013.6746917

33.

Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932409 CrossRef

34.

ISO 5725-2:1994 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 2: basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method. https://www.iso.org/standard/11834.html. Accessed 14 Dec 2018

35.

Carrasco JL, Jover L (2003) Estimating the generalized concordance correlation coefficient through variance components. Biometrics 59:849–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2003.00099.x CrossRefPubMed

36.

Balagurunathan Y, Gu Y, Wang H et al (2014) Reproducibility and prognosis of quantitative features extracted from CT images. Transl Oncol 7:72–87. https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.13844 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Balagurunathan Y, Kumar V, Gu Y et al (2014) Test-retest reproducibility analysis of lung CT image features. J Digit Imaging 27:805–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9716-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Armato SG, Meyer CR, Mcnitt-Gray MF et al (2008) The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of change-analysis software. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84:448–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2008.161 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, et al (2016) Image biomarker standardisation initiative. arXiv:1612.07003v7 [cs.CV]

Title: Radiomic feature reproducibility in contrast-enhanced CT of the pancreas is affected by variabilities in scan parameters and manual segmentation
Authors: Rikiya Yamashita
Thomas Perrin
Jayasree Chakraborty
Joanne F. Chou
Natally Horvat
Maura A. Koszalka
Abhishek Midya
Mithat Gonen
Peter Allen
William R. Jarnagin
Amber L. Simpson
Richard K. G. Do
Publication date: 01-01-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06381-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Radiomic feature reproducibility in contrast-enhanced CT of the pancreas is affected by variabilities in scan parameters and manual segmentation

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Evaluation of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma in the explanted liver with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2017

Compressed sensing real-time cine imaging for assessment of ventricular function, volumes and mass in clinical practice

“Dark-blood” dual-energy computed tomography angiography for thoracic aortic wall imaging

Distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with and without risks: the evaluation of the LR-M criteria of contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system version 2017

Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Interobserver variability and likelihood of malignancy for fifth edition BI-RADS MRI descriptors in non-mass breast lesions