BACKGROUND: Radiomic descriptors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are promising for disease diagnosis and characterization but may be sensitive to differences in imaging parameters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability and robustness of radiomic descriptors within healthy brain tissue regions on prospectively acquired MRI scans; in a test-retest setting, under controlled systematic variations of MRI acquisition parameters, and after postprocessing. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifteen healthy participants. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3.0 T, axial T2 -weighted 2D turbo spin-echo pulse sequence, 181 scans acquired (2 test/retest reference scans and 12 with systematic variations in contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration per participant; removing scans with artifacts). ASSESSMENT: One hundred and forty-six radiomic descriptors were extracted from a contiguous 2D region of white matter in each scan, before and after postprocessing. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability was assessed in a test/retest setting and between manual and automated annotations for the reference scan. Robustness was evaluated between the reference scan and each group of variant scans (contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration). Both repeatability and robustness were quantified as the proportion of radiomic descriptors that fell into distinct ranges of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC): excellent (CCC > 0.85), good (0.7 ≤ CCC ≤ 0.85), moderate (0.5 ≤ CCC < 0.7), and poor (CCC < 0.5); for unprocessed and postprocessed scans separately. RESULTS: Good to excellent repeatability was observed for 52% of radiomic descriptors between test/retest scans and 48% of descriptors between automated vs. manual annotations, respectively. Contrast weighting (TR/TE) changes were associated with the largest proportion of highly robust radiomic descriptors (21%, after processing). Image resolution changes resulted in the largest proportion of poorly robust radiomic descriptors (97%, before postprocessing). Postprocessing of images with only resolution/acceleration differences resulted in 73% of radiomic descriptors showing poor robustness. DATA CONCLUSIONS: Many radiomic descriptors appear to be nonrobust across variations in MR contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration, as well in test-retest settings, depending on feature formulation and postprocessing. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
BACKGROUND: Radiomic descriptors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are promising for disease diagnosis and characterization but may be sensitive to differences in imaging parameters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability and robustness of radiomic descriptors within healthy brain tissue regions on prospectively acquired MRI scans; in a test-retest setting, under controlled systematic variations of MRI acquisition parameters, and after postprocessing. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifteen healthy participants. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3.0 T, axial T2 -weighted 2D turbo spin-echo pulse sequence, 181 scans acquired (2 test/retest reference scans and 12 with systematic variations in contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration per participant; removing scans with artifacts). ASSESSMENT: One hundred and forty-six radiomic descriptors were extracted from a contiguous 2D region of white matter in each scan, before and after postprocessing. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability was assessed in a test/retest setting and between manual and automated annotations for the reference scan. Robustness was evaluated between the reference scan and each group of variant scans (contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration). Both repeatability and robustness were quantified as the proportion of radiomic descriptors that fell into distinct ranges of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC): excellent (CCC > 0.85), good (0.7 ≤ CCC ≤ 0.85), moderate (0.5 ≤ CCC < 0.7), and poor (CCC < 0.5); for unprocessed and postprocessed scans separately. RESULTS: Good to excellent repeatability was observed for 52% of radiomic descriptors between test/retest scans and 48% of descriptors between automated vs. manual annotations, respectively. Contrast weighting (TR/TE) changes were associated with the largest proportion of highly robust radiomic descriptors (21%, after processing). Image resolution changes resulted in the largest proportion of poorly robust radiomic descriptors (97%, before postprocessing). Postprocessing of images with only resolution/acceleration differences resulted in 73% of radiomic descriptors showing poor robustness. DATA CONCLUSIONS: Many radiomic descriptors appear to be nonrobust across variations in MR contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration, as well in test-retest settings, depending on feature formulation and postprocessing. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: E J Limkin; R Sun; L Dercle; E I Zacharaki; C Robert; S Reuzé; A Schernberg; N Paragios; E Deutsch; C Ferté Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Sarthak Pati; Ruchika Verma; Hamed Akbari; Michel Bilello; Virginia B Hill; Chiharu Sako; Ramon Correa; Niha Beig; Ludovic Venet; Siddhesh Thakur; Prashant Serai; Sung Min Ha; Geri D Blake; Russell Taki Shinohara; Pallavi Tiwari; Spyridon Bakas Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: R W Y Granzier; A Ibrahim; S Primakov; S A Keek; I Halilaj; A Zwanenburg; S M E Engelen; M B I Lobbes; P Lambin; H C Woodruff; M L Smidt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 5.119