Thomas Perrin1, Abhishek Midya1, Rikiya Yamashita2, Jayasree Chakraborty1, Tome Saidon2, William R Jarnagin1, Mithat Gonen3, Amber L Simpson1, Richard K G Do4. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA. dok@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver cancers in patients who underwent consecutive contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with intravenous iodinated contrast within 2 weeks by chance. METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the requirement for patients' informed consent. Patients were included if they had a liver malignancy (liver metastasis, n = 22, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, n = 10, and hepatocellular carcinoma, n = 6), had two consecutive CECT within 14 days, and had no prior or intervening therapy. Liver tumors and liver parenchyma were segmented and radiomic features (n = 254) were extracted. The number of reproducible features (with concordance correlation coefficients > 0.9) was calculated for patient subgroups with different variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution. RESULTS: The number of reproducible radiomic features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution. When including all CECTs with injection rates differences of less than 15% vs. up to 50%, 63/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma and 68/254 vs. 50/254 features were reproducible for malignancies. When including all CT with pixel resolution differences of 0-5% or 0-15%, 20/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma; 34/254 liver malignancy features were reproducible with pixel differences up to 15%. CONCLUSION: A greater number of liver malignancy radiomic features were reproducible compared to liver parenchyma features, but the proportion of reproducible features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rates and pixel resolution.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver cancers in patients who underwent consecutive contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with intravenous iodinated contrast within 2 weeks by chance. METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the requirement for patients' informed consent. Patients were included if they had a liver malignancy (liver metastasis, n = 22, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, n = 10, and hepatocellular carcinoma, n = 6), had two consecutive CECT within 14 days, and had no prior or intervening therapy. Liver tumors and liver parenchyma were segmented and radiomic features (n = 254) were extracted. The number of reproducible features (with concordance correlation coefficients > 0.9) was calculated for patient subgroups with different variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution. RESULTS: The number of reproducible radiomic features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution. When including all CECTs with injection rates differences of less than 15% vs. up to 50%, 63/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma and 68/254 vs. 50/254 features were reproducible for malignancies. When including all CT with pixel resolution differences of 0-5% or 0-15%, 20/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma; 34/254 liver malignancy features were reproducible with pixel differences up to 15%. CONCLUSION: A greater number of liver malignancy radiomic features were reproducible compared to liver parenchyma features, but the proportion of reproducible features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rates and pixel resolution.
Authors: Rolf Symons; Justin Z Morris; Colin O Wu; Amir Pourmorteza; Mark A Ahlman; João A C Lima; Marcus Y Chen; Marissa Mallek; Veit Sandfort; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Vicky Goh; Henry C Mandeville; Quan Sing Ng; Peter J Hoskin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laurent Hermoye; Ismael Laamari-Azjal; Zhujiang Cao; Laurence Annet; Jan Lerut; Benoit M Dawant; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Jennifer S Golia Pernicka; Johan Gagniere; Jayasree Chakraborty; Rikiya Yamashita; Lorenzo Nardo; John M Creasy; Iva Petkovska; Richard R K Do; David D B Bates; Viktoriya Paroder; Mithat Gonen; Martin R Weiser; Amber L Simpson; Marc J Gollub Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-11
Authors: Joshua S Jolissaint; Tiegong Wang; Kevin C Soares; Joanne F Chou; Mithat Gönen; Linda M Pak; Thomas Boerner; Richard K G Do; Vinod P Balachandran; Michael I D'Angelica; Jeffrey A Drebin; T P Kingham; Alice C Wei; William R Jarnagin; Jayasree Chakraborty Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Reza Reiazi; Colin Arrowsmith; Mattea Welch; Farnoosh Abbas-Aghababazadeh; Christopher Eeles; Tony Tadic; Andrew J Hope; Scott V Bratman; Benjamin Haibe-Kains Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Zbigniew Starosolski; Amy N Courtney; Mayank Srivastava; Linjie Guo; Igor Stupin; Leonid S Metelitsa; Ananth Annapragada; Ketan B Ghaghada Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 3.161