Literature DB >> 26229145

Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET.

Jianhua Yan1, Jason Lim Chu-Shern2, Hoi Yin Loi3, Lih Kin Khor3, Arvind K Sinha3, Swee Tian Quek3, Ivan W K Tham4, David Townsend5.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Evaluation of tumor heterogeneity based on texture parameters has recently attracted much interest in the PET imaging community. However, the impact of reconstruction settings on texture parameters is unclear, especially relating to time-of-flight and point-spread function modeling. Their effects on 55 texture features (TFs) and 6 features based on first-order statistics (FOS) were investigated. Standardized uptake value (SUV) measures were also evaluated as peak SUV (SUVpeak), maximum SUV, and mean SUV (SUVmean).
METHODS: This study retrospectively recruited 20 patients with lesions in the lung who underwent whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT. The coefficient of variation (COV) of each feature across different reconstructions was calculated.
RESULTS: SUVpeak, SUVmean, 18 TFs, and 1 FOS were the most robust (COV ≤ 5%) whereas skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the least robust (COV > 20%) with respect to reconstruction algorithms using default settings. Heterogeneity parameters had different sensitivities to iteration number. Twenty-four parameters including SUVpeak and SUVmean exhibited variation with a COV less than 5%; 28 parameters, including maximum SUV, showed variation with a COV in the range of 5%-10%. In addition, skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the most sensitive to iteration number. In terms of sensitivity to full width at half maximum (FWHM), 15 TFs and 1 FOS had the best performance with a COV less than 5%, whereas SUVpeak and SUVmean had a COV between 5% and 10%. Grid size had the largest impact on image features, which was demonstrated by only 11 features, including SUVpeak and SUVmean, having a COV less than 10%.
CONCLUSION: Different image features have different sensitivities to reconstruction settings. Iteration number and FWHM of the gaussian filter have a similar impact on the image features. Grid size has a larger impact on the features than iteration number and FWHM. The features that exhibited large variations such as skewness in FOS, cluster shade, and zone percentage should be used with caution. The entropy in FOS, difference entropy, inverse difference normalized, inverse difference moment normalized, low gray-level run emphasis, high gray-level run emphasis, and low gray-level zone emphasis are the most robust features.
© 2015 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  18F-FDG PET; point-spread function; time-of-flight; tumor texture

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26229145     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.156927

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  75 in total

1.  Developments in oncological positron emission tomography/computed tomography assessment.

Authors:  Carsten Kobe; Ronald Boellaard; Jürgen Wolf; Georg Kuhnert; Markus Dietlein; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Deniz Kahraman
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET Textural Features in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Secondary Analysis of ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235.

Authors:  Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Bo Wei; Mitchell Machtay; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Value of Intratumoral Metabolic Heterogeneity and Quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT Parameters to Predict Prognosis in Patients With HPV-Positive Primary Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Esther Mena; Mehdi Taghipour; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Abhinav K Jha; Arman Rahmim; Lilja Solnes; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 7.794

4.  External validation of a combined PET and MRI radiomics model for prediction of recurrence in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  François Lucia; Dimitris Visvikis; Martin Vallières; Marie-Charlotte Desseroit; Omar Miranda; Philippe Robin; Pietro Andrea Bonaffini; Joanne Alfieri; Ingrid Masson; Augustin Mervoyer; Caroline Reinhold; Olivier Pradier; Mathieu Hatt; Ulrike Schick
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Towards precision medicine: from quantitative imaging to radiomics.

Authors:  U Rajendra Acharya; Yuki Hagiwara; Vidya K Sudarshan; Wai Yee Chan; Kwan Hoong Ng
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2018 Jan.       Impact factor: 3.066

6.  Radiomics in nuclear medicine: robustness, reproducibility, standardization, and how to avoid data analysis traps and replication crisis.

Authors:  Alex Zwanenburg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Neural network training for cross-protocol radiomic feature standardization in computed tomography.

Authors:  Vincent Andrearczyk; Adrien Depeursinge; Henning Müller
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-06-06

Review 8.  Texture analysis of medical images for radiotherapy applications.

Authors:  Elisa Scalco; Giovanna Rizzo
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  The impact of image reconstruction settings on 18F-FDG PET radiomic features: multi-scanner phantom and patient studies.

Authors:  Isaac Shiri; Arman Rahmim; Pardis Ghaffarian; Parham Geramifar; Hamid Abdollahi; Ahmad Bitarafan-Rajabi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Radiomics in Oncological PET/CT: Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Jeong Won Lee; Sang Mi Lee
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-10-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.