John P Crandall1, Tyler J Fraum1, MinYoung Lee1, Linda Jiang1, Perry Grigsby2, Richard L Wahl3,2. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in Saint Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and rwahl@wustl.edu.
Abstract
Knowledge of the intrinsic variability of radiomic features is essential to the proper interpretation of changes in these features over time. The primary aim of this study was to assess the test-retest repeatability of radiomic features extracted from 18F-FDG PET images of cervical tumors. The impact of different image preprocessing methods was also explored. Methods: Patients with cervical cancer underwent baseline and repeat 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging within 7 d. PET images were reconstructed using 2 methods: ordered-subset expectation maximization (PETOSEM) or ordered-subset expectation maximization with point-spread function (PETPSF). Tumors were segmented to produce whole-tumor volumes of interest (VOIWT) and 40% isocontours (VOI40). Voxels were either left at the default size or resampled to 3-mm isotropic voxels. SUV was discretized to a fixed number of bins (32, 64, or 128). Radiomic features were extracted from both VOIs, and repeatability was then assessed using the Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results: Eleven patients were enrolled and completed the test-retest PET/CT imaging protocol. Shape, neighborhood gray-level difference matrix, and gray-level cooccurrence matrix features were repeatable, with a mean CCC value of 0.81. Radiomic features extracted from PETOSEM images showed significantly better repeatability than features extracted from PETPSF images (P < 0.001). Radiomic features extracted from VOI40 were more repeatable than features extracted from VOIWT (P < 0.001). For most features (78.4%), a change in bin number or voxel size resulted in less than a 10% change in feature value. All gray-level emphasis and gray-level run emphasis features showed poor repeatability (CCC values < 0.52) when extracted from VOIWT but were highly repeatable (mean CCC values > 0.96) when extracted from VOI40 Conclusion: Shape, gray-level cooccurrence matrix, and neighborhood gray-level difference matrix radiomic features were consistently repeatable, whereas gray-level run length matrix and gray-level zone length matrix features were highly variable. Radiomic features extracted from VOI40 were more repeatable than features extracted from VOIWT Changes in voxel size or SUV discretization parameters typically resulted in relatively small differences in feature value, though several features were highly sensitive to these changes.
Knowledge of the intrinsic variability of radiomic features is essential to the proper interpretation of changes in these features over time. The primary aim of this study was to assess the test-retest repeatability of radiomic features extracted from 18F-FDG PET images of cervical tumors. The impact of different image preprocessing methods was also explored. Methods: Patients with cervical cancer underwent baseline and repeat 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging within 7 d. PET images were reconstructed using 2 methods: ordered-subset expectation maximization (PETOSEM) or ordered-subset expectation maximization with point-spread function (PETPSF). Tumors were segmented to produce whole-tumor volumes of interest (VOIWT) and 40% isocontours (VOI40). Voxels were either left at the default size or resampled to 3-mm isotropic voxels. SUV was discretized to a fixed number of bins (32, 64, or 128). Radiomic features were extracted from both VOIs, and repeatability was then assessed using the Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results: Eleven patients were enrolled and completed the test-retest PET/CT imaging protocol. Shape, neighborhood gray-level difference matrix, and gray-level cooccurrence matrix features were repeatable, with a mean CCC value of 0.81. Radiomic features extracted from PETOSEM images showed significantly better repeatability than features extracted from PETPSF images (P < 0.001). Radiomic features extracted from VOI40 were more repeatable than features extracted from VOIWT (P < 0.001). For most features (78.4%), a change in bin number or voxel size resulted in less than a 10% change in feature value. All gray-level emphasis and gray-level run emphasis features showed poor repeatability (CCC values < 0.52) when extracted from VOIWT but were highly repeatable (mean CCC values > 0.96) when extracted from VOI40 Conclusion: Shape, gray-level cooccurrence matrix, and neighborhood gray-level difference matrix radiomic features were consistently repeatable, whereas gray-level run length matrix and gray-level zone length matrix features were highly variable. Radiomic features extracted from VOI40 were more repeatable than features extracted from VOIWT Changes in voxel size or SUV discretization parameters typically resulted in relatively small differences in feature value, though several features were highly sensitive to these changes.
Authors: Jianhua Yan; Jason Lim Chu-Shern; Hoi Yin Loi; Lih Kin Khor; Arvind K Sinha; Swee Tian Quek; Ivan W K Tham; David Townsend Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeffrey R Olsen; Jacqueline Esthappan; Todd DeWees; Vamsi R Narra; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Julie K Schwarz; Perry W Grigsby Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Theresia Sarabhai; Alexander Tschischka; Vanessa Stebner; Felix Nensa; Axel Wetter; Rainer Kimmig; Michael Forsting; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu; Johannes Grueneisen Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Alex Zwanenburg; Martin Vallières; Mahmoud A Abdalah; Hugo J W L Aerts; Vincent Andrearczyk; Aditya Apte; Saeed Ashrafinia; Spyridon Bakas; Roelof J Beukinga; Ronald Boellaard; Marta Bogowicz; Luca Boldrini; Irène Buvat; Gary J R Cook; Christos Davatzikos; Adrien Depeursinge; Marie-Charlotte Desseroit; Nicola Dinapoli; Cuong Viet Dinh; Sebastian Echegaray; Issam El Naqa; Andriy Y Fedorov; Roberto Gatta; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; Michael Götz; Matthias Guckenberger; Sung Min Ha; Mathieu Hatt; Fabian Isensee; Philippe Lambin; Stefan Leger; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Jacopo Lenkowicz; Fiona Lippert; Are Losnegård; Klaus H Maier-Hein; Olivier Morin; Henning Müller; Sandy Napel; Christophe Nioche; Fanny Orlhac; Sarthak Pati; Elisabeth A G Pfaehler; Arman Rahmim; Arvind U K Rao; Jonas Scherer; Muhammad Musib Siddique; Nanna M Sijtsema; Jairo Socarras Fernandez; Emiliano Spezi; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost; Taman Upadhaya; Vincenzo Valentini; Lisanne V van Dijk; Joost van Griethuysen; Floris H P van Velden; Philip Whybra; Christian Richter; Steffen Löck Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 29.146
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: Claudia Campana; Peter M van Koetsveld; Richard A Feelders; Wouter W de Herder; Anand M Iyer; Marie-Louise F van Velthuysen; Marije J Veenstra; Elisabeth S R van den Dungen; Sanne E Franck; Diego Ferone; Federico Gatto; Leo J Hofland Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 6.558