Literature DB >> 28948196

Quantitative texture analysis: robustness of radiomics across two digital mammography manufacturers' systems.

Kayla R Mendel1, Hui Li1, Li Lan1, Cathleen M Cahill1, Victoria Rael1, Hiroyuki Abe1, Maryellen L Giger1.   

Abstract

The robustness of radiomic texture analysis across different manufacturers of mammography imaging systems is investigated. We quantified feature robustness across mammography manufacturers using a dataset of 111 women who underwent consecutive screening mammography on both general electric and Hologic systems. In each mammogram, a square region of interest (ROI) directly behind the nipple was manually selected. Radiomic features describing parenchymal patterns were automatically extracted on each ROI. Feature comparisons were conducted between manufacturers (and breast densities) using newly developed robustness metrics descriptive of correlation, equivalence, and variability. By examining the distribution of these metric values, we propose the following selection criteria to guide feature evaluation in this dataset: (1) [Formula: see text] of feature ratios [Formula: see text], (2) standard deviation of feature ratios [Formula: see text], (3) correlation of features [Formula: see text], and (4) [Formula: see text]. Statistically significant correlation coefficients ranged from 0.13 to 0.68 in comparisons between the two mammographic systems tested. Features describing spatial patterns tended to exhibit high correlation coefficients, while intensity- and directionality-based features had comparatively poor correlation. Our proposed robustness metrics may be used to evaluate other datasets, for which different ranges of metric values may be appropriate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; mammography; quantitative imaging; radiomics; robustness

Year:  2017        PMID: 28948196      PMCID: PMC5604617          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  12 in total

1.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment: feature selection.

Authors:  Z Huo; M L Giger; D E Wolverton; W Zhong; S Cumming; O I Olopade
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Zhimin Huo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Li Lan; Barbara L Weber; Ioana Bonta
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Fractal analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns in breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Li Lan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Power spectral analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Michael R Chinander
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Li Lan; Jyothi Janardanan; Charlene A Sennett
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-11-13

6.  Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Lynn C Hartmann; Carol Reynolds; Daniel W Visscher; Kathleen R Brandt; Robert A Vierkant; Christopher G Scott; Derek C Radisky; Thomas A Sellers; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Pilot study demonstrating potential association between breast cancer image-based risk phenotypes and genomic biomarkers.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Chang Sun; Umnouy Ponsukcharoen; Dezheng Huo; Li Lan; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrew R Jamieson; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Anna Di Rienzo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Cancer statistics, 2008.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Yongping Hao; Jiaquan Xu; Taylor Murray; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 508.702

9.  Wolfe's parenchymal pattern and percentage of the breast with mammographic densities: redundant or complementary classifications?

Authors:  Jacques Brisson; Caroline Diorio; Benoît Mâsse
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  7 in total

1.  Radiomics robustness assessment and classification evaluation: A two-stage method demonstrated on multivendor FFDM.

Authors:  Kayla Robinson; Hui Li; Li Lan; David Schacht; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  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

4.  Effects of variability in radiomics software packages on classifying patients with radiation pneumonitis.

Authors:  Joseph J Foy; Samuel G Armato; Hania A Al-Hallaq
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-02-21

5.  Variation in algorithm implementation across radiomics software.

Authors:  Joseph J Foy; Kayla R Robinson; Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Hania Al-Hallaq; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-12-04

6.  Effect of an iterative reconstruction quantum noise reduction technique on computed tomography radiomic features.

Authors:  Joseph J Foy; Mena Shenouda; Sahar Ramahi; Samuel Armato; Daniel Thomas Ginat
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-12-30

7.  Incorporating Robustness to Imaging Physics into Radiomic Feature Selection for Breast Cancer Risk Estimation.

Authors:  Raymond J Acciavatti; Eric A Cohen; Omid Haji Maghsoudi; Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Emily F Conant; Christopher G Scott; Stacey J Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine Vachon; Andrew D A Maidment; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 6.639

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.