Elisabeth Pfaehler1, Joyce van Sluis2, Bram B J Merema3, Peter van Ooijen4, Ralph C M Berendsen5, Floris H P van Velden6, Ronald Boellaard2,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands e.a.g.pfaehler@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Physics, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 6. Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; and. 7. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
The sensitivity of radiomic features to several confounding factors, such as reconstruction settings, makes clinical use challenging. To investigate the impact of harmonized image reconstructions on feature consistency, a multicenter phantom study was performed using 3-dimensionally printed phantom inserts reflecting realistic tumor shapes and heterogeneity uptakes. Methods: Tumors extracted from real PET/CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer served as model for three 3-dimensionally printed inserts. Different heterogeneity pattern were realized by printing separate compartments that could be filled with different activity solutions. The inserts were placed in the National Electrical Manufacturers Association image-quality phantom and scanned various times. First, a list-mode scan was acquired and 5 statistically equal replicates were reconstructed. Second, the phantom was scanned 4 times on the same scanner. Third, the phantom was scanned on 6 PET/CT systems. All images were reconstructed using EANM Research Ltd. (EARL)-compliant and locally clinically preferred reconstructions. EARL-compliant reconstructions were performed without (EARL1) or with (EARL2) point-spread function. Images were analyzed with and without resampling to 2-mm cubic voxels. Images were discretized with a fixed bin width (FBW) of 0.25 and a fixed bin number (FBN) of 64. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of each scan setup was calculated and compared across reconstruction settings. An ICC above 0.75 was regarded as high. Results: The percentage of features yielding a high ICC was largest for the statistically equal replicates (70%-91% for FBN; 90%-96% for FBW discretization). For scans acquired on the same system, the percentage decreased, but most features still resulted in a high ICC (FBN, 52%-63%; FBW, 75%-85%). The percentage of features yielding a high ICC decreased more in the multicenter setting. In this case, the percentage of features yielding a high ICC was larger for images reconstructed with EARL-compliant reconstructions: for example, 40% for EARL1 and 60% for EARL2 versus 21% for the clinically preferred setting for FBW discretization. When discretized with FBW and resampled to isotropic voxels, this benefit was more pronounced. Conclusion: EARL-compliant reconstructions harmonize a wide range of radiomic features. FBW discretization and a sampling to isotropic voxels enhances the benefits of EARL-compliant reconstructions.
The sensitivity of radiomic features to several confounding factors, such as reconstruction settings, makes clinical use challenging. To investigate the impact of harmonized image reconstructions on feature consistency, a multicenter phantom study was performed using 3-dimensionally printed phantom inserts reflecting realistic tumor shapes and heterogeneity uptakes. Methods: Tumors extracted from real PET/CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer served as model for three 3-dimensionally printed inserts. Different heterogeneity pattern were realized by printing separate compartments that could be filled with different activity solutions. The inserts were placed in the National Electrical Manufacturers Association image-quality phantom and scanned various times. First, a list-mode scan was acquired and 5 statistically equal replicates were reconstructed. Second, the phantom was scanned 4 times on the same scanner. Third, the phantom was scanned on 6 PET/CT systems. All images were reconstructed using EANM Research Ltd. (EARL)-compliant and locally clinically preferred reconstructions. EARL-compliant reconstructions were performed without (EARL1) or with (EARL2) point-spread function. Images were analyzed with and without resampling to 2-mm cubic voxels. Images were discretized with a fixed bin width (FBW) of 0.25 and a fixed bin number (FBN) of 64. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of each scan setup was calculated and compared across reconstruction settings. An ICC above 0.75 was regarded as high. Results: The percentage of features yielding a high ICC was largest for the statistically equal replicates (70%-91% for FBN; 90%-96% for FBW discretization). For scans acquired on the same system, the percentage decreased, but most features still resulted in a high ICC (FBN, 52%-63%; FBW, 75%-85%). The percentage of features yielding a high ICC decreased more in the multicenter setting. In this case, the percentage of features yielding a high ICC was larger for images reconstructed with EARL-compliant reconstructions: for example, 40% for EARL1 and 60% for EARL2 versus 21% for the clinically preferred setting for FBW discretization. When discretized with FBW and resampled to isotropic voxels, this benefit was more pronounced. Conclusion: EARL-compliant reconstructions harmonize a wide range of radiomic features. FBW discretization and a sampling to isotropic voxels enhances the benefits of EARL-compliant reconstructions.
Authors: Matthew J Nyflot; Fei Yang; Darrin Byrd; Stephen R Bowen; George A Sandison; Paul E Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-08-05
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Chintan Parmar; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; André L A J Dekker; Robert J Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Gerbrand M Kramer; Virginie Frings; Ida A Nissen; Emma R Mulder; Adrianus J de Langen; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Guilherme D Kolinger; David Vállez García; Gerbrand M Kramer; Virginie Frings; Egbert F Smit; Adrianus J de Langen; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Baderaldeen A Altazi; Geoffrey G Zhang; Daniel C Fernandez; Michael E Montejo; Dylan Hunt; Joan Werner; Matthew C Biagioli; Eduardo G Moros Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Jakoba J Eertink; Gerben J C Zwezerijnen; Matthijs C F Cysouw; Sanne E Wiegers; Elisabeth A G Pfaehler; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Bronno van der Holt; Otto S Hoekstra; Henrica C W de Vet; Josée M Zijlstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Guilherme D Kolinger; David Vállez García; Gerbrand Maria Kramer; Virginie Frings; Gerben J C Zwezerijnen; Egbert F Smit; Adrianus Johannes de Langen; Irène Buvat; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Chunyan Duan; W Art Chaovalitwongse; Fangyun Bai; Daniel S Hippe; Shouyi Wang; Phawis Thammasorn; Larry A Pierce; Xiao Liu; Jianxin You; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Paul E Kinahan; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng; Stephen R Bowen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Virginia Liberini; Bruno De Santi; Osvaldo Rampado; Elena Gallio; Beatrice Dionisi; Francesco Ceci; Giulia Polverari; Philippe Thuillier; Filippo Molinari; Désirée Deandreis Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-02-27
Authors: Elisabeth Pfaehler; Liesbet Mesotten; Ivan Zhovannik; Simone Pieplenbosch; Michiel Thomeer; Karolien Vanhove; Peter Adriaensens; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Matthijs C F Cysouw; Bernard H E Jansen; Tim van de Brug; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Elisabeth Pfaehler; Bart M de Vries; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Otto S Hoekstra; André N Vis; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jakoba J Eertink; Elisabeth A G Pfaehler; Sanne E Wiegers; Tim van; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Otto S Hoekstra; Josée M Zijlstra; Henrica C W de Vet; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057