Marie-Charlotte Desseroit1,2, Florent Tixier2,3, Wolfgang A Weber4, Barry A Siegel5, Catherine Cheze Le Rest2,3, Dimitris Visvikis6, Mathieu Hatt6. 1. Laboratory of Medical Information Processing, INSERM UMR 1101, IBSAM, University of Brest, Brest, France Marie-Charlotte.Desseroit@etudiant.univ-brest.fr. 2. Medical School, University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 3. Nuclear Medicine, CHU Milétrie, Poitiers, France. 4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 5. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 6. Laboratory of Medical Information Processing, INSERM UMR 1101, IBSAM, University of Brest, Brest, France.
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of shape and heterogeneity features in both the PET and the low-dose CT components of PET/CT. A secondary objective was to investigate the impact of image quantization. Methods: A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant secondary analysis of deidentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest datasets of 74 patients from multicenter Merck and American College of Radiology Imaging Network trials was performed. Metabolically active volumes were automatically delineated on PET with a fuzzy locally adaptive bayesian algorithm. Software was used to semiautomatically delineate the anatomic volumes on the low-dose CT component. Two quantization methods were considered: a quantization into a set number of bins (quantization B) and an alternative quantization with bins of fixed width (quantization W). Four shape descriptors, 10 first-order metrics, and 26 textural features were evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis was used to quantify repeatability. Features were subsequently categorized as very reliable, reliable, moderately reliable, or poorly reliable with respect to the corresponding volume variability. Results: Repeatability was highly variable among features. Numerous metrics were identified as poorly or moderately reliable. Others were reliable or very reliable in both modalities and in all categories (shape and first-, second-, and third-order metrics). Image quantization played a major role in feature repeatability. Features were more reliable in PET with quantization B, whereas quantization W showed better results in CT. Conclusion: The test-retest repeatability of shape and heterogeneity features in PET and low-dose CT varied greatly among metrics. The level of repeatability also depended strongly on the quantization step, with different optimal choices for each modality. The repeatability of PET and low-dose CT features should be carefully considered when selecting metrics to build multiparametric models.
The main purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of shape and heterogeneity features in both the PET and the low-dose CT components of PET/CT. A secondary objective was to investigate the impact of image quantization. Methods: A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant secondary analysis of deidentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest datasets of 74 patients from multicenter Merck and American College of Radiology Imaging Network trials was performed. Metabolically active volumes were automatically delineated on PET with a fuzzy locally adaptive bayesian algorithm. Software was used to semiautomatically delineate the anatomic volumes on the low-dose CT component. Two quantization methods were considered: a quantization into a set number of bins (quantization B) and an alternative quantization with bins of fixed width (quantization W). Four shape descriptors, 10 first-order metrics, and 26 textural features were evaluated. Bland-Altman analysis was used to quantify repeatability. Features were subsequently categorized as very reliable, reliable, moderately reliable, or poorly reliable with respect to the corresponding volume variability. Results: Repeatability was highly variable among features. Numerous metrics were identified as poorly or moderately reliable. Others were reliable or very reliable in both modalities and in all categories (shape and first-, second-, and third-order metrics). Image quantization played a major role in feature repeatability. Features were more reliable in PET with quantization B, whereas quantization W showed better results in CT. Conclusion: The test-retest repeatability of shape and heterogeneity features in PET and low-dose CT varied greatly among metrics. The level of repeatability also depended strongly on the quantization step, with different optimal choices for each modality. The repeatability of PET and low-dose CT features should be carefully considered when selecting metrics to build multiparametric models.
Authors: Jianhua Yan; Jason Lim Chu-Shern; Hoi Yin Loi; Lih Kin Khor; Arvind K Sinha; Swee Tian Quek; Ivan W K Tham; David Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Jinzhong Yang; Lifei Zhang; Xenia J Fave; David V Fried; Francesco C Stingo; Chaan S Ng; Laurence E Court Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Stephen S F Yip; Thibaud P Coroller; Nina N Sanford; Elizabeth Huynh; Harvey Mamon; Hugo J W L Aerts; Ross I Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Xenia Fave; Dennis Mackin; Jinzhong Yang; Joy Zhang; David Fried; Peter Balter; David Followill; Daniel Gomez; A Kyle Jones; Francesco Stingo; Jonas Fontenot; Laurence Court Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ivayla Apostolova; Julian Rogasch; Ralph Buchert; Heinz Wertzel; H Jost Achenbach; Jens Schreiber; Sandra Riedel; Christian Furth; Alexandr Lougovski; Georg Schramm; Frank Hofheinz; Holger Amthauer; Ingo G Steffen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Georgi Nalbantov; Sara Carvalho; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Esther G C Troost; Ronald Boellaard; Hugo J W L Aerts; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Joseph R Osborne; Teja M Kalidindi; Blesida J Punzalan; Kishore Gangangari; Daniel E Spratt; Wolfgang A Weber; Steven M Larson; Naga Vara Kishore Pillarsetty Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488