Literature DB >> 28261818

On the impact of smoothing and noise on robustness of CT and CBCT radiomics features for patients with head and neck cancers.

Hassan Bagher-Ebadian1,2, Farzan Siddiqui1, Chang Liu1, Benjamin Movsas1, Indrin J Chetty1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We investigated the characteristics of radiomics features extracted from planning CT (pCT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) image datasets acquired for 18 oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with fractionated radiation therapy. Images were subjected to smoothing, sharpening, and noise to evaluate changes in features relative to baseline datasets.
METHODS: Textural features were extracted from tumor volumes, contoured on pCT and CBCT images, according to the following eight different classes: intensity based histogram features (IBHF), gray level run length (GLRL), law's textural information (LAWS), discrete orthonormal stockwell transform (DOST), local binary pattern (LBP), two-dimensional wavelet transform (2DWT), Two dimensional Gabor filter (2DGF), and gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM). A total of 165 radiomics features were extracted. Images were post-processed prior to feature extraction using a Gaussian noise model with different signal-to-noise-ratios (SNR = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100, and 150). Gaussian filters with different cut off frequencies (varied discreetly from 0.0458 to 0.7321 cycles-mm-1 ) were applied to image datasets. Effect of noise and smoothing on each extracted feature was quantified using mean absolute percent change (MAPC) between the respective values on post-processed and baseline images. The Fisher method for combining Welch P-values was used for tests of significance. Three comparisons were investigated: (a) Baseline pCT versus modified pCT (with given filter applied); (b) Baseline CBCT versus modified CBCT, and (c) Baseline and modified pCT versus baseline and modified CBCT.
RESULTS: Features extracted from CT and CBCT image datasets were robust to low-pass filtering (MAPC = 17.5%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.93 for CBCT and MAPC = 7.5%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.98 for pCT) and noise (MAPC = 27.1%, pvalFisher¯ =  0.89 for CBCT, and MAPC = 34.6%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.61 for pCT). Extracted features were significantly impacted (MAPC=187.7%, pvalFisher¯ < 0.0001 for CBCT, and MAPC = 180.6%, pvalFisher¯ < 0.01 for pCT) by LOG which is classified as a high-pass filter. Features most impacted by low pass filtering were LAWS (MAPC = 11.2%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.44), GLRL (MAPC = 9.7%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.70) and IBHF (MAPC = 21.7%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.83), for the pCT datasets, and LAWS (MAPC = 20.2%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.24), GLRL (MAPC = 14.5%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.44), and 2DGF (MAPC=16.3%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.52), for CBCT image datasets. For pCT datasets, features most impacted by noise were GLRL (MAPC = 29.7%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.06), LAWS (MAPC = 96.6%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.42), and GLCM (MAPC = 36.2%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.48), while the LBPF (MAPC = 5.2%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.99) was found to be relatively insensitive to noise. For CBCT datasets, GLRL (MAPC = 8.9%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.80) and LAWS (MAPC = 89.3%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.81) features were impacted by noise, while the LBPF (MAPC = 2.2%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.99) and DOST (MAPC = 13.7%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.98) features were noise insensitive. Apart from 15 features, no significant differences were observed for the remaining 150 textural features extracted from baseline pCT and CBCT image datasets (MAPC = 90.1%, pvalFisher¯ = 0.26).
CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics features extracted from planning CT and daily CBCT image datasets for head/neck cancer patients were robust to low-power Gaussian noise and low-pass filtering, but were impacted by high-pass filtering. Textural features extracted from CBCT and pCT image datasets were similar, suggesting interchangeability of pCT and CBCT for investigating radiomics features as possible biomarkers for outcome.
© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cone beam CT; haralick features; head and neck cancer; planning computed tomography; radiomics feature

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28261818     DOI: 10.1002/mp.12188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  15 in total

Review 1.  NCTN Assessment on Current Applications of Radiomics in Oncology.

Authors:  Ke Nie; Hania Al-Hallaq; X Allen Li; Stanley H Benedict; Jason W Sohn; Jean M Moran; Yong Fan; Mi Huang; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; James Monroe; Ceferino Obcemea; Christina I Tsien; Timothy Solberg; Jackie Wu; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Practical guidelines for handling head and neck computed tomography artifacts for quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  Rachel B Ger; Daniel F Craft; Dennis S Mackin; Shouhao Zhou; Rick R Layman; A Kyle Jones; Hesham Elhalawani; Clifton D Fuller; Rebecca M Howell; Heng Li; R Jason Stafford; Laurence E Court
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 4.790

3.  Radiomics Approach Outperforms Diameter Criteria for Predicting Pathological Lateral Lymph Node Metastasis After Neoadjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy in Advanced Low Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Ryota Nakanishi; Takashi Akiyoshi; Shigeo Toda; Yu Murakami; Senzo Taguchi; Koji Oba; Yutaka Hanaoka; Toshiya Nagasaki; Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Shuichiro Matoba; Masashi Ueno; Yosuke Fukunaga; Hiroya Kuroyanagi
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  The role of radiomics in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Delgadillo; John C Ford; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Dal Pra; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  Accounting for reconstruction kernel-induced variability in CT radiomic features using noise power spectra.

Authors:  Muhammad Shafiq-Ul-Hassan; Geoffrey G Zhang; Dylan C Hunt; Kujtim Latifi; Ghanim Ullah; Robert J Gillies; Eduardo G Moros
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-12-14

Review 6.  Radiomics: from qualitative to quantitative imaging.

Authors:  William Rogers; Sithin Thulasi Seetha; Turkey A G Refaee; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Renée W Y Granzier; Abdalla Ibrahim; Simon A Keek; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Sergey P Primakov; Manon P L Beuque; Damiënne Marcus; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Fadila Zerka; Cary J G Oberije; Janita E van Timmeren; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Predicting survival in patients with glioblastoma using MRI radiomic features extracted from radiation planning volumes.

Authors:  Benjamin J Geraghty; Archya Dasgupta; Arjun Sahgal; Gregory J Czarnota; Michael Sandhu; Nauman Malik; Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Jay Detsky; Chia-Lin Tseng; Hany Soliman; Sten Myrehaug; Zain Husain; James Perry; Angus Lau
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 4.130

8.  Diagnostic Accuracy and Failure Mode Analysis of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Authors:  Andrew F Voter; Ece Meram; John W Garrett; John-Paul J Yu
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 6.240

Review 9.  Machine and deep learning methods for radiomics.

Authors:  Michele Avanzo; Lise Wei; Joseph Stancanello; Martin Vallières; Arvind Rao; Olivier Morin; Sarah A Mattonen; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Optimal co-clinical radiomics: Sensitivity of radiomic features to tumour volume, image noise and resolution in co-clinical T1-weighted and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sudipta Roy; Timothy D Whitehead; James D Quirk; Amber Salter; Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Shunqiang Li; Hongyu An; Kooresh I Shoghi
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 8.143

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.