Top

Published in:

01-08-2018 | Molecular Imaging

Robustness versus disease differentiation when varying parameter settings in radiomics features: application to nasopharyngeal PET/CT

Authors: Wenbing Lv, Qingyu Yuan, Quanshi Wang, Jianhua Ma, Jun Jiang, Wei Yang, Qianjin Feng, Wufan Chen, Arman Rahmim, Lijun Lu

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2018

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the impact of parameter settings as used for the generation of radiomics features on their robustness and disease differentiation (nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) versus chronic nasopharyngitis (CN) in FDG PET/CT imaging).

Methods

We studied 106 patients (69/37 NPC/CN, pathology confirmed), and extracted 57 radiomics features under different parameter settings. Robustness was assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Logistic regression with leave-one-out cross validation was used to generate classification probabilities, and diagnostic performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

Varying averaging strategies and symmetry, 4/26 GLCM features showed poor range of pairwise ICCs of 0.02–0.98, while depicting good AUCs of 0.82–0.91. Varying distances, 5/26 GLCM features showed ICCs of 0.82–0.99 while corresponding AUCs were 0.52–0.91. 6/13 GLRLM features showed both high AUC (0.81–0.89) and high ICC (0.85–0.99) regarding to averaging strategies. 7/13 GLSZM features showed AUCs of 0.81–0.90 while having ICCs of 0.01–0.99 under different neighbourhoods. 2/5 NGTDM features showed AUCs of 0.81–0.85 while having ICCs of 0.19–0.89 for different window sizes. Differentiating a subset of NPC (stages I–II) form CN, both SumEntropy and SZLGE achieved significantly higher AUCs than metabolically active tumour volume (AUC: 0.91 vs. 0.72, p<0.01).

Conclusions

Radiomics features depicting poor absolute-scale robustness regarding to parameter settings can still lead to good diagnostic performance. As such, robustness of radiomics features should not be overemphasized for removal of features towards assessment of clinical tasks. For differentiating NPC from CN, some radiomics features (e.g. SumEntropy, SZLGE, LGZE) outperformed conventional metrics.

Key Points

• Poor robustness did not necessarily translate into poor differentiation performance.

• Absolute-scale robustness of radiomics features should not be overemphasized.

• Radiomics features SumEntropy, SZLGE and LGZE outperformed conventional metrics.

Available only for authorised users

Liu FY, Lin CY, Chang JT et al (2007) 18F-FDG PET can replace conventional work-up in primary M staging of nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 48:1614–1619CrossRefPubMed

O'Donnell HE, Plowman PN, Khaira MK, Alusi G (2008) PET scanning and Gamma Knife radiosurgery in the early diagnosis and salvage "cure" of locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Br J Radiol 81:e26–e30CrossRefPubMed

Ng SH, Chan SC, Yen TC et al (2009) Staging of untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with PET/CT: comparison with conventional imaging work-up. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:12–22CrossRefPubMed

Wu H, Wang Q, Wang M, Zhen X, Zhou W, Li H (2011) Preliminary study of 11C-choline PET/CT for T staging of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 52:341–346CrossRefPubMed

King AD, Ma BB, Yau YY et al (2008) The impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on assessment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma at diagnosis. Br J Radiol 81:291–298CrossRefPubMed

Strauss LG (1996) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med 23:1409–1415CrossRefPubMed

van Waarde A, Cobben DC, Suurmeijer AJ et al (2004) Selectivity of 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG for differentiating tumor from inflammation in a rodent model. J Nucl Med 45:695–700PubMed

Hustinx R, Smith RJ, Benard F et al (1999) Dual time point fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a potential method to differentiate malignancy from inflammation and normal tissue in the head and neck. Eur J Nucl Med 26:1345–1348CrossRefPubMed

Wahl RL (2008) Principles and practice of PET and PET/CT. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

10.

Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S et al (2012) Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. New Engl J Med 366:883–892CrossRefPubMed

11.

Parekh V, Jacobs MA (2016) Radiomics: a new application from established techniques. Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev 1:207–226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mu W, Chen Z, Liang Y et al (2015) Staging of cervical cancer based on tumor heterogeneity characterized by texture features on 18F-FDG PET images. Phys Med Biol 60:5123–5139CrossRefPubMed

15.

Yip SS, Coroller TP, Sanford NN, Mamon H, Aerts HJ, Berbeco RI (2016) Relationship between the temporal changes in positron-emission-tomography-imaging-based textural features and pathologic response and survival in esophageal cancer patients. Front Oncol 6:72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Narayan V et al (2016) Radiomic phenotype features predict pathological response in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 119:480–486CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Wu W, Parmar C, Grossmann P et al (2016) Exploratory study to identify radiomics classifiers for lung cancer histology. Front Oncol 6:71PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Soussan M, Orlhac F, Boubaya M et al (2014) Relationship between tumor heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. PLoS One 9:e94017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Lovinfosse P, Janvary ZL, Coucke P et al (2016) FDG PET/CT texture analysis for predicting the outcome of lung cancer treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1453–1460CrossRefPubMed

20.

Tixier F, Hatt M, Valla C et al (2014) Visual versus quantitative assessment of intratumor 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity: prognostic value in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 55:1235–1241CrossRefPubMed

21.

El NI, Grigsby P, Apte A et al (2009) Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 42:1162–1171CrossRef

22.

Win T, Miles KA, Janes SM et al (2013) 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 19:3591–3599CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cheng NM, Fang YH, Lee LY et al (2015) Zone-size nonuniformity of 18F-FDG PET regional textural features predicts survival in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:419–428CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tixier F, Groves AM, Goh V et al (2014) Correlation of intra-tumor 18F-FDG uptake heterogeneity indices with perfusion CT derived parameters in colorectal cancer. PLoS One 9:e99567CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Soufi M, Kamali-Asl A, Geramifar P, Rahmim A (2017) A Novel Framework for Automated Segmentation and Labeling of Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Lung Tumors in [F-18]FDG-PET Imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 19:456–468CrossRefPubMed

26.

Vallieres M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I (2015) A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol 60:5471–5496CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lambin P, Leijenaar R, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol14:749-762

28.

Aerts HJ (2016) The Potential of Radiomic-Based Phenotyping in Precision Medicine: A Review. JAMA Oncol 2:1636–1642CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefPubMed

30.

Yip SS, Aerts HJ (2016) Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol 61:R150–R166CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R (2010) Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 49:1012–1016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

van Velden FHP, Kramer GM, Frings V et al (2016) Repeatability of radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT studies: Impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol Imaging Biol 18:788–795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Doumou G, Siddique M, Tsoumpas C, Goh V, Cook GJ (2015) The precision of textural analysis in 18F-FDG-PET scans of oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol 25:2805–2812CrossRefPubMed

34.

Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze LRC, Pradier O, Visvikis D (2013) Robustness of intratumour 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1662–1671CrossRefPubMed

35.

Leijenaar RT, Nalbantov G, Carvalho S et al (2015) The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep 5:11075CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Lu L, Lv W, Jiang J et al (2016) Robustness of radiomic features in [11C]choline and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: impact of segmentation and discretization. Mol Imaging Biol 18:935–945CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hatt M, Tixier F, Pierce L, Kinahan PE, Le Rest CC, Visvikis D (2017) Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present... any future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:151–165CrossRefPubMed

38.

Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb. SMC-3:610–621CrossRef

39.

Soh L, Tsatsoulis C (1999) Texture Analysis of SAR Sea Ice Imagery Using Gray Level Co-Occurrence Matrices. IEEE T Geosci Remote 37:780–795CrossRef

40.

Metser U, Jhaveri KS, Murphy G, Halankar J (2015) Multiparameteric PET-MR assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: PET, MR, PET-MR and tumor texture analysis: A pilot study. Adv Mol Imaging 5:49–60CrossRef

41.

Roy A, Warbey V, Ferner R, O’Doherty M, Marsden P (2012) Feature based differentiation of benign, malignant and atypical neurofibroma in FDG-PET scans. J Nucl Med 53:2256

42.

Rahmim A, Salimpour Y, Jain S et al (2016) Application of texture analysis to DAT SPECT imaging: Relationship to clinical assessments. Neuroimage Clin 12:e1–e9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Gelzinis A, Verikas A, Bacauskiene M (2007) Increasing the discrimination power of the co-occurrence matrix-based features. Pattern Recogn 40:2367–2372CrossRef

44.

Rahmim A, Salimpour Y, Blinder S, Klyuzhin I, Sossi V (2016) Optimized haralick texture quantification to track Parkinson’s disease progression from DAT SPECT images. J Nucl Med 57:428

45.

Nanni L, Brahnam S, Ghidoni S, Menegatti E, Barrier T (2013) Different approaches for extracting information from the co-occurrence matrix. PLoS One 8:e83554CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallieres M et al (2015) 18F-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 56:38–44CrossRefPubMed

47.

Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Mozeg D (2009) Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:374–383CrossRefPubMed

48.

Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ et al (2006) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 47:885–895PubMed

49.

Jiang J, Wu H, Huang M et al (2015) Variability of Gross Tumor Volume in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using 11C-Choline and 18F-FDG PET/CT. PLoS One 10:e131801

50.

Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc. 36:111–147

51.

DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRefPubMed

52.

Shiri I, Rahmim A, Ghaffarian P, Geramifar P, Abdollahi H, Bitarafan-Rajabi A (2017) The impact of image reconstruction settings on 18F-FDG PET radiomic features: multi-scanner phantom and patient studies. Eur Radiol 27:4498–4509CrossRefPubMed

53.

Bailly C, Bodet-Milin C, Couespel S et al (2016) Revisiting the robustness of PET-based textural features in the context of multi-centric trials. PLoS One 11:e159984

54.

Orlhac F, Boughdad S, Nioche C, Alberini JL, Soussan M, Buvat I (2017) An original approach to deal with multi-center variability of PET textural features. J Nucl Med 58:506CrossRef

55.

Lin C, Bradshaw T, Perk T, Harmon S, Liu G, Jeraj R (2015) Repeatability of [18F]-NaF PET imaging biomarkers for bone lesions: A multicenter study. Med Phys 42:3587CrossRef

56.

Busson P (2013) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma keys for translational medicine and biology. Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media, AustinCrossRef

Title: Robustness versus disease differentiation when varying parameter settings in radiomics features: application to nasopharyngeal PET/CT
Authors: Wenbing Lv
Qingyu Yuan
Quanshi Wang
Jianhua Ma
Jun Jiang
Wei Yang
Qianjin Feng
Wufan Chen
Arman Rahmim
Lijun Lu
Publication date: 01-08-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5343-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Robustness versus disease differentiation when varying parameter settings in radiomics features: application to nasopharyngeal PET/CT

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Extraction of large-scale structural covariance networks from grey matter volume for Parkinson’s disease classification

How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes

CT and MRI of pancreatic cancer: there is no rose without a thorn!

MRI-based decision tree model for diagnosis of biliary atresia

Editorial Comment: Advances in MRI and PET of the prostate: concurrence or complementarity?

Renal fat fraction and diffusion tensor imaging in patients with early-stage diabetic nephropathy