Marta Ligero1, Olivia Jordi-Ollero2, Kinga Bernatowicz1, Alonso Garcia-Ruiz1, Eric Delgado-Muñoz1, David Leiva3, Richard Mast4, Cristina Suarez5, Roser Sala-Llonch6, Nahum Calvo3, Manuel Escobar4, Arturo Navarro-Martin7, Guillermo Villacampa8, Rodrigo Dienstmann8, Raquel Perez-Lopez9,10. 1. Radiomics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus (Spain), Barcelona, Spain. 2. Medical Physics and Radiation Protection Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Duran i Reynals Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Radiology Department, Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Radiology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d´Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus (Spain), Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Radiation Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Duran i Reynals Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 8. Oncology Data Science (ODysSey) Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus (Spain), Barcelona, Spain. 9. Radiomics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus (Spain), Barcelona, Spain. rperez@vhio.net. 10. Radiology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. rperez@vhio.net.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify CT-acquisition parameters accounting for radiomics variability and to develop a post-acquisition CT-image correction method to reduce variability and improve radiomics classification in both phantom and clinical applications. METHODS: CT-acquisition protocols were prospectively tested in a phantom. The multi-centric retrospective clinical study included CT scans of patients with colorectal/renal cancer liver metastases. Ninety-three radiomics features of first order and texture were extracted. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between CT-acquisition protocols were evaluated to define sources of variability. Voxel size, ComBat, and singular value decomposition (SVD) compensation methods were explored for reducing the radiomics variability. The number of robust features was compared before and after correction using two-proportion z test. The radiomics classification accuracy (K-means purity) was assessed before and after ComBat- and SVD-based correction. RESULTS: Fifty-three acquisition protocols in 13 tissue densities were analyzed. Ninety-seven liver metastases from 43 patients with CT from two vendors were included. Pixel size, reconstruction slice spacing, convolution kernel, and acquisition slice thickness are relevant sources of radiomics variability with a percentage of robust features lower than 80%. Resampling to isometric voxels increased the number of robust features when images were acquired with different pixel sizes (p < 0.05). SVD-based for thickness correction and ComBat correction for thickness and combined thickness-kernel increased the number of reproducible features (p < 0.05). ComBat showed the highest improvement of radiomics-based classification in both the phantom and clinical applications (K-means purity 65.98 vs 73.20). CONCLUSION: CT-image post-acquisition processing and radiomics normalization by means of batch effect correction allow for standardization of large-scale data analysis and improve the classification accuracy. KEY POINTS: • The voxel size (accounting for the pixel size and slice spacing), slice thickness, and convolution kernel are relevant sources of CT-radiomics variability. • Voxel size resampling increased the mean percentage of robust CT-radiomics features from 59.50 to 89.25% when comparing CT scans acquired with different pixel sizes and from 71.62 to 82.58% when the scans were acquired with different slice spacings. • ComBat batch effect correction reduced the CT-radiomics variability secondary to the slice thickness and convolution kernel, improving the capacity of CT-radiomics to differentiate tissues (in the phantom application) and the primary tumor type from liver metastases (in the clinical application).
OBJECTIVE: To identify CT-acquisition parameters accounting for radiomics variability and to develop a post-acquisition CT-image correction method to reduce variability and improve radiomics classification in both phantom and clinical applications. METHODS: CT-acquisition protocols were prospectively tested in a phantom. The multi-centric retrospective clinical study included CT scans of patients with colorectal/renal cancer liver metastases. Ninety-three radiomics features of first order and texture were extracted. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between CT-acquisition protocols were evaluated to define sources of variability. Voxel size, ComBat, and singular value decomposition (SVD) compensation methods were explored for reducing the radiomics variability. The number of robust features was compared before and after correction using two-proportion z test. The radiomics classification accuracy (K-means purity) was assessed before and after ComBat- and SVD-based correction. RESULTS: Fifty-three acquisition protocols in 13 tissue densities were analyzed. Ninety-seven liver metastases from 43 patients with CT from two vendors were included. Pixel size, reconstruction slice spacing, convolution kernel, and acquisition slice thickness are relevant sources of radiomics variability with a percentage of robust features lower than 80%. Resampling to isometric voxels increased the number of robust features when images were acquired with different pixel sizes (p < 0.05). SVD-based for thickness correction and ComBat correction for thickness and combined thickness-kernel increased the number of reproducible features (p < 0.05). ComBat showed the highest improvement of radiomics-based classification in both the phantom and clinical applications (K-means purity 65.98 vs 73.20). CONCLUSION: CT-image post-acquisition processing and radiomics normalization by means of batch effect correction allow for standardization of large-scale data analysis and improve the classification accuracy. KEY POINTS: • The voxel size (accounting for the pixel size and slice spacing), slice thickness, and convolution kernel are relevant sources of CT-radiomics variability. • Voxel size resampling increased the mean percentage of robust CT-radiomics features from 59.50 to 89.25% when comparing CT scans acquired with different pixel sizes and from 71.62 to 82.58% when the scans were acquired with different slice spacings. • ComBat batch effect correction reduced the CT-radiomics variability secondary to the slice thickness and convolution kernel, improving the capacity of CT-radiomics to differentiate tissues (in the phantom application) and the primary tumor type from liver metastases (in the clinical application).
Authors: Cosmin Lazar; Stijn Meganck; Jonatan Taminau; David Steenhoff; Alain Coletta; Colin Molter; David Y Weiss-Solís; Robin Duque; Hugues Bersini; Ann Nowé Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Matea Pavic; Marta Bogowicz; Xaver Würms; Stefan Glatz; Tobias Finazzi; Oliver Riesterer; Johannes Roesch; Leonie Rudofsky; Martina Friess; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Martin Huellner; Isabelle Opitz; Walter Weder; Thomas Frauenfelder; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Roger Sun; Elaine Johanna Limkin; Maria Vakalopoulou; Laurent Dercle; Stéphane Champiat; Shan Rong Han; Loïc Verlingue; David Brandao; Andrea Lancia; Samy Ammari; Antoine Hollebecque; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Aurélien Marabelle; Christophe Massard; Jean-Charles Soria; Charlotte Robert; Nikos Paragios; Eric Deutsch; Charles Ferté Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Chintan Parmar; Joseph D Barry; Ahmed Hosny; John Quackenbush; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joost J M van Griethuysen; Andriy Fedorov; Chintan Parmar; Ahmed Hosny; Nicole Aucoin; Vivek Narayan; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Steve Pieper; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kai Mei; Michael Geagan; Leonid Roshkovan; Harold I Litt; Grace J Gang; Nadav Shapira; J Webster Stayman; Peter B Noël Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Turkey Refaee; Zohaib Salahuddin; Yousif Widaatalla; Sergey Primakov; Henry C Woodruff; Roland Hustinx; Felix M Mottaghy; Abdalla Ibrahim; Philippe Lambin Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-31
Authors: Gerard M Healy; Emmanuel Salinas-Miranda; Rahi Jain; Xin Dong; Dominik Deniffel; Ayelet Borgida; Ali Hosni; David T Ryan; Nwabundo Njeze; Anne McGuire; Kevin C Conlon; Jonathan D Dodd; Edmund Ronan Ryan; Robert C Grant; Steven Gallinger; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Abdalla Ibrahim; Turkey Refaee; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sergey Primakov; Roland Hustinx; Felix M Mottaghy; Henry C Woodruff; Andrew D A Maidment; Philippe Lambin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Krit Dwivedi; Michael Sharkey; Robin Condliffe; Johanna M Uthoff; Samer Alabed; Peter Metherall; Haiping Lu; Jim M Wild; Eric A Hoffman; Andrew J Swift; David G Kiely Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-09
Authors: Andrew Hope; Maikel Verduin; Thomas J Dilling; Ananya Choudhury; Rianne Fijten; Leonard Wee; Hugo Jwl Aerts; Issam El Naqa; Ross Mitchell; Marc Vooijs; Andre Dekker; Dirk de Ruysscher; Alberto Traverso Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.639