| Literature DB >> 28615677 |
Stephen S F Yip1, Ying Liu2, Chintan Parmar3, Qian Li2, Shichang Liu2, Fangyuan Qu2, Zhaoxiang Ye2, Robert J Gillies4,5, Hugo J W L Aerts3,6.
Abstract
Tumor phenotypes captured in computed tomography (CT) images can be described qualitatively and quantitatively using radiologist-defined "semantic" and computer-derived "radiomic" features, respectively. While both types of features have shown to be promising predictors of prognosis, the association between these groups of features remains unclear. We investigated the associations between semantic and radiomic features in CT images of 258 non-small cell lung adenocarcinomas. The tumor imaging phenotypes were described using 9 qualitative semantic features that were scored by radiologists, and 57 quantitative radiomic features that were automatically calculated using mathematical algorithms. Of the 9 semantic features, 3 were rated on a binary scale (cavitation, air bronchogram, and calcification) and 6 were rated on a categorical scale (texture, border definition, contour, lobulation, spiculation, and concavity). 32-41 radiomic features were associated with the binary semantic features (AUC = 0.56-0.76). The relationship between all radiomic features and the categorical semantic features ranged from weak to moderate (|Spearmen's correlation| = 0.002-0.65). There are associations between semantic and radiomic features, however the associations were not strong despite being significant. Our results indicate that radiomic features may capture distinct tumor phenotypes that fail to be perceived by naked eye that semantic features do not describe and vice versa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28615677 PMCID: PMC5471260 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02425-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient characteristics. Distribution of patient tumor characteristics and radiologists’ scoring for semantic features.
|
| Total |
|---|---|
| 258 | |
|
| |
| Male/Female | 146 (57%)/112 (43%) |
|
| 59 (range 30–81) |
|
| |
| Current or Former/Never | 117 (45%)/141 (55%) |
|
| |
| I/II/III/IV | 160 (62%)/23 (9%)/66 (26%)/9 (3%) |
|
| |
| Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma | 3 (1%) |
| Acinar predominant | 109 (42%) |
| Lepidic predominant | 60 (23%) |
| Papillary predominant | 20 (8%) |
| Micropapillary predominant | 12 (5%) |
| Solid predominant | 49 (19%) |
| Variants of invasive adenocarcinomas | 5 (2%) |
|
| |
| Low/Intermediate/High | 3 (1%)/189 (73%)/66 (26%) |
|
| |
| Siemens | |
| Somatom Sensation 64 | 30 (12%) |
| GE scanner | |
| Lightspeed 16/Discovery CT750 HD | 35 (14%)/193(75%) |
|
| |
| Cavitation (score: 0/1) | 106 (41%)/152 (59%) |
| Air Bronchogram (score: 0/1) | 116 (45%)/142 (55%) |
| Calcification (score: 0/1) | 229 (89%)/29(11%) |
|
| |
| Texture (score: 1/2/3) | 6 (2%)/68 (26%)/184 (71%) |
| Border definition (score: 1/2/3) | 13 (5%)/178 (69%)/67 (26%) |
| Contour (score: 1/2/3/4) | 17 (7%)/26 (10%)/166 (64%)/49 (19%) |
| Lobulation (score: 1/2/3/4) | 10 (4%)/115 (45%)/102 (40%)/31 (12%) |
| Spiculation (score: 1/2/3) | 63 (24%)/85 (33%)/110 (43%) |
| Concavity (score: 1/2/3) | 9 (4%) /156 (61%)/93 (36%) |
Figure 1Association between the binary semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with the area under the ROC curve (AUC). *Indicates a significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). “Rand.” = random association (AUC = 0.50). “Prop.” and “Inv. Prop.” indicate direct and inverse proportionality, respectively.
Figure 2Tumors with and without cavitation. (a) Tumor without cavitation (b) Tumor with minor Cavitation (c) Tumor with major Cavitation. The arrow indicates the location of the tumor.
Figure 3Associations between the binary semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with the area under the ROC curve (AUC). *Indicates a significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). “Rand.” = random association (AUC = 0.50). “Prop.” And “Inv. Prop.” indicate direct and inverse proportionality, respectively. Wv = Wavelet. LoG = Laplacian of Gaussian.
Figure 4Association between the six categorical semantic and ten unfiltered radiomic features assessed with Spearman coefficient correlation. *Indicates that the association was significant (q-value ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5Associations between the categorical semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with Spearman coefficient correlation. *Indicates a statistically significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). Wv = Wavelet. LoG = Laplacian of Gaussian.
Figure 6Tumors with different border definitions. (a) Tumor with a well-defined border (score = 1). (b) Tumor with neither a well- or poorly-defined border (score = 2). (c) Tumor with a poorly-defined border (score = 3). The arrow indicates the location of the tumor.
Definition of the CT-based semantic features for lung tumor. Visual examples of tumors with different semantic features are shown in the supplemental materials.
| Semantic feature type | Semantic feature | Definition | Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Cavitation | Gas-filled space (cavity) within the tumor due to central necrosis | 1 = presence, 0 = absence | |
| Air Bronchogram | Tubular line or branched air structure within the tumor | 1 = presence, 0 = absence | |
| Calcification | Display layer(s) of calcium in any patterns | 1 = presence, 0 = absence | |
|
| |||
| Texture | Non-solid/GGO, part-solid or solid tumor | 1 = non-solid/GGO; 2 = part-solid; 3 = solid | |
| Border definition | Appearance of the edge of the tumor | 1 = well defined; 2 = tumor border is neither poor nor well defined; 3, poorly defined | |
| Contour | Roundness of the tumor | 1 = round; 2 = oval; 3 = somewhat irregular; 4 = irregular | |
| Lobulation | Tumor with undulating border | 1 = not lobulated; 2 to 4 = lobulated tumor with increasing degree | |
| Spiculation | Tumor with spikes its edge | 1 = no spiculation; 2 = fine spiculation; 3 = coarse spiculation | |
| Concavity | Notches (or concave cut) on the tumor surface | 1 = no concavity; 2 = slight concavity; 3 = deep concavity | |