Revisiting the Robustness of PET-Based Textural Features in the Context of Multi-Centric Trials

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the variability of textural features (TF) as a function of acquisition and reconstruction parameters within the context of multi-centric trials. Methods The robustness of 15 selected TFs were studied as a function of the number of iterations, the post-filtering level, input data noise, the reconstruction algorithm and the matrix size. A combination of several reconstruction and acquisition settings was devised to mimic multi-centric conditions. We retrospectively studied data from 26 patients enrolled in a diagnostic study that aimed to evaluate the performance of PET/CT 68Ga-DOTANOC in gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Forty-one tumors were extracted and served as the database. The coefficient of variation (COV) or the absolute deviation (for the noise study) was derived and compared statistically with SUVmax and SUVmean results. Results The majority of investigated TFs can be used in a multi-centric context when each parameter is considered individually. The impact of voxel size and noise in the input data were predominant as only 4 TFs presented a high/intermediate robustness against SUV-based metrics (Entropy, Homogeneity, RP and ZP). When combining several reconstruction settings to mimic multi-centric conditions, most of the investigated TFs were robust enough against SUVmax except Correlation, Contrast, LGRE, LGZE and LZLGE. Conclusion Considering previously published results on either reproducibility or sensitivity against delineation approach and our findings, it is feasible to consider Homogeneity, Entropy, Dissimilarity, HGRE, HGZE and ZP as relevant for being used in multi-centric trials.

[1]  C Clifton Ling,et al.  Dependence of FDG uptake on tumor microenvironment. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  Ralph A Bundschuh,et al.  Textural features in pre-treatment [F18]-FDG-PET/CT are correlated with risk of local recurrence and disease-specific survival in early stage NSCLC patients receiving primary stereotactic radiation therapy , 2015, Radiation oncology.

[3]  Robert J. Gillies,et al.  The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[4]  M. Soussan,et al.  Relationship between Tumor Heterogeneity Measured on FDG-PET/CT and Pathological Prognostic Factors in Invasive Breast Cancer , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Qualification of PET Scanners for Use in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Experience , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  Irène Buvat,et al.  Tumor Texture Analysis in 18F-FDG PET: Relationships Between Texture Parameters, Histogram Indices, Standardized Uptake Values, Metabolic Volumes, and Total Lesion Glycolysis , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  T. Turkington,et al.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Jie Tian,et al.  Staging of cervical cancer based on tumor heterogeneity characterized by texture features on 18F-FDG PET images , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Patrick Granton,et al.  Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. , 2012, European journal of cancer.

[10]  P. Marsden,et al.  False Discovery Rates in PET and CT Studies with Texture Features: A Systematic Review , 2015, PloS one.

[11]  P. A. Futreal,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  P Vera,et al.  Development of a generic thresholding algorithm for the delineation of 18FDG-PET-positive tissue: application to the comparison of three thresholding models , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[14]  D. Townsend,et al.  Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Irène Buvat,et al.  Tumor Texture Analysis in PET: Where Do We Stand? , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  Ching-Han Hsu,et al.  Zone-size nonuniformity of 18F-FDG PET regional textural features predicts survival in patients with oropharyngeal cancer , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  Jungsu S. Oh,et al.  Intratumor Textural Heterogeneity on Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET Images Predicts Response and Survival After Chemoradiotherapy for Hypopharyngeal Cancer , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[18]  M. Hatt,et al.  18F-FDG PET Uptake Characterization Through Texture Analysis: Investigating the Complementary Nature of Heterogeneity and Functional Tumor Volume in a Multi–Cancer Site Patient Cohort , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  Issam El-Naqa,et al.  Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes , 2009, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Florent Tixier,et al.  Robustness of intratumour 18 F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in ooesophageal carcinoma , 2017 .

[21]  G. Parker,et al.  Imaging Intratumor Heterogeneity: Role in Therapy Response, Resistance, and Clinical Outcome , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[22]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Computer aided staging of lymphoma patients with FDG PET/CT imaging based on textural information , 2012, ISBI.

[23]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Radiomics in PET: principles and applications , 2014, Clinical and Translational Imaging.

[24]  Thomas Carlier,et al.  State-Of-The-Art and Recent Advances in Quantification for Therapeutic Follow-Up in Oncology Using PET , 2015, Front. Med..

[25]  Florent Tixier,et al.  Visual Versus Quantitative Assessment of Intratumor 18F-FDG PET Uptake Heterogeneity: Prognostic Value in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  M. Hatt,et al.  Reproducibility of Tumor Uptake Heterogeneity Characterization Through Textural Feature Analysis in 18F-FDG PET , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Florent Tixier,et al.  The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[28]  R. Jeraj,et al.  Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[29]  M. Hatt,et al.  Robustness of intratumour 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[30]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[31]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Computer-Aided Staging of Lymphoma Patients With FDG PET/CT Imaging Based on Textural Information , 2012, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[32]  P. Lambin,et al.  Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[33]  P. Lambin,et al.  Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach , 2014, Nature Communications.

[34]  M. Hatt,et al.  Intratumor Heterogeneity Characterized by Textural Features on Baseline 18F-FDG PET Images Predicts Response to Concomitant Radiochemotherapy in Esophageal Cancer , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[35]  Bal Sanghera,et al.  Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? , 2012, Insights into Imaging.