Samuel Hawkins1, Hua Wang2, Ying Liu2, Alberto Garcia3, Olya Stringfield3, Henry Krewer1, Qian Li2, Dmitry Cherezov1, Robert A Gatenby4, Yoganand Balagurunathan3, Dmitry Goldgof1, Matthew B Schabath5, Lawrence Hall1, Robert J Gillies6. 1. Department of Computer Sciences and Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 2. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, People's Republic of China; Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 3. Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 4. Department of Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 5. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 6. Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida; Department of Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. Electronic address: Robert.Gillies@Moffitt.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether quantitative analyses ("radiomics") of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening images at baseline can predict subsequent emergence of cancer. METHODS: Public data from the National Lung Screening Trial (ACRIN 6684) were assembled into two cohorts of 104 and 92 patients with screen-detected lung cancer and then matched with cohorts of 208 and 196 screening subjects with benign pulmonary nodules. Image features were extracted from each nodule and used to predict the subsequent emergence of cancer. RESULTS: The best models used 23 stable features in a random forests classifier and could predict nodules that would become cancerous 1 and 2 years hence with accuracies of 80% (area under the curve 0.83) and 79% (area under the curve 0.75), respectively. Radiomics outperformed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System and volume-only approaches. The performance of the McWilliams risk assessment model was commensurate. CONCLUSIONS: The radiomics of lung cancer screening computed tomography scans at baseline can be used to assess risk for development of cancer.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether quantitative analyses ("radiomics") of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening images at baseline can predict subsequent emergence of cancer. METHODS: Public data from the National Lung Screening Trial (ACRIN 6684) were assembled into two cohorts of 104 and 92 patients with screen-detected lung cancer and then matched with cohorts of 208 and 196 screening subjects with benign pulmonary nodules. Image features were extracted from each nodule and used to predict the subsequent emergence of cancer. RESULTS: The best models used 23 stable features in a random forests classifier and could predict nodules that would become cancerous 1 and 2 years hence with accuracies of 80% (area under the curve 0.83) and 79% (area under the curve 0.75), respectively. Radiomics outperformed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System and volume-only approaches. The performance of the McWilliams risk assessment model was commensurate. CONCLUSIONS: The radiomics of lung cancer screening computed tomography scans at baseline can be used to assess risk for development of cancer.
Authors: Robert E Banfield; Lawrence O Hall; Kevin W Bowyer; W P Kegelmeyer Journal: IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.226
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; David S Gierada; William Black; Reginald Munden; Hrudaya Nath; Denise Aberle; Ella Kazerooni Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Annette McWilliams; Martin C Tammemagi; John R Mayo; Heidi Roberts; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Simon Martel; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Christine D Berg; Ken Evans; Richard Finley; John Yee; John English; Paola Nasute; John Goffin; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Michael R Johnston; Daria Manos; Garth Nicholas; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Alain Tremblay; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Rick Bhatia; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renée Manser; Anne Lethaby; Louis B Irving; Christine Stone; Graham Byrnes; Michael J Abramson; Don Campbell Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-06-21
Authors: Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Yuhua Gu; Hua Wang; Virendra Kumar; Olya Grove; Sam Hawkins; Jongphil Kim; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Yuhua Gu; Virendra Kumar; Lawrence O Hall; Dmitry B Goldgof; Ching-Yen Li; René Korn; Claus Bendtsen; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Andre Dekker; Hugo Aerts; Philippe Lambin; Xiuli Li; Jie Tian; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Pattern Recognit Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 7.740
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Donghyun Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Jung Youn Kim; Se Jin Cho; Jae Ho Shin; Jeong Hoon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Karen Drukker; Feng Li; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Georgia D Tourassi; Roger M Engelmann; Maryellen L Giger; George Redmond; Keyvan Farahani; Justin S Kirby; Laurence P Clarke Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-19
Authors: David A Hormuth; Anna G Sorace; John Virostko; Richard G Abramson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Pedro Enriquez-Navas; Robert Gillies; John D Hazle; Ralph P Mason; C Chad Quarles; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Junzhong Xu; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Wei Wu; Larry A Pierce; Yuzheng Zhang; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Kristin J Lastwika; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton; Haining Liu; Liming Xia; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Chintan Parmar; Ying Liu; Thibaud P Coroller; Gisele Cruz; Olya Stringfield; Zhaoxiang Ye; Mike Makrigiorgos; Fiona Fennessy; Raymond H Mak; Robert Gillies; John Quackenbush; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 12.701