Radiomics features of the primary tumor fail to improve prediction of overall survival in large cohorts of CT- and PET-imaged head and neck cancer patients

Radiomics studies require many patients in order to power them, thus patients are often combined from different institutions and using different imaging protocols. Various studies have shown that imaging protocols affect radiomics feature values. We examined whether using data from cohorts with controlled imaging protocols improved patient outcome models. We retrospectively reviewed 726 CT and 686 PET images from head and neck cancer patients, who were divided into training or independent testing cohorts. For each patient, radiomics features with different preprocessing were calculated and two clinical variables—HPV status and tumor volume—were also included. A Cox proportional hazards model was built on the training data by using bootstrapped Lasso regression to predict overall survival. The effect of controlled imaging protocols on model performance was evaluated by subsetting the original training and independent testing cohorts to include only patients whose images were obtained using the same imaging protocol and vendor. Tumor volume, HPV status, and two radiomics covariates were selected for the CT model, resulting in an AUC of 0.72. However, volume alone produced a higher AUC, whereas adding radiomics features reduced the AUC. HPV status and one radiomics feature were selected as covariates for the PET model, resulting in an AUC of 0.59, but neither covariate was significantly associated with survival. Limiting the training and independent testing to patients with the same imaging protocol reduced the AUC for CT patients to 0.55, and no covariates were selected for PET patients. Radiomics features were not consistently associated with survival in CT or PET images of head and neck patients, even within patients with the same imaging protocol.

[1]  Ruijiang Li,et al.  Integrating Tumor and Nodal Imaging Characteristics at Baseline and Mid-Treatment Computed Tomography Scans to Predict Distant Metastasis in Oropharyngeal Cancer Treated With Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. , 2019, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[3]  Jinzhong Yang,et al.  Preliminary investigation into sources of uncertainty in quantitative imaging features , 2015, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[4]  Laurence Court,et al.  Harmonizing the pixel size in retrospective computed tomography radiomics studies , 2017, PloS one.

[5]  Peter Balter,et al.  Delta-radiomics features for the prediction of patient outcomes in non–small cell lung cancer , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[6]  Jinzhong Yang,et al.  Measuring Computed Tomography Scanner Variability of Radiomics Features , 2015, Investigative radiology.

[7]  Odile Casiraghi,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of CT based radiomics signature in locally advanced head and neck cancers patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy or bioradiotherapy and its added value to Human Papillomavirus status. , 2017, Oral oncology.

[8]  Jinzhong Yang,et al.  IBEX: an open infrastructure software platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. , 2015, Medical physics.

[9]  Stephen M. Moore,et al.  The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[10]  W. Tsai,et al.  Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Issam El-Naqa,et al.  Radiomics strategies for risk assessment of tumour failure in head-and-neck cancer , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Challenges and Promises of PET Radiomics , 2018, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of Radiomic Features in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT Studies: Impact of Reconstruction and Delineation , 2016, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[14]  Matthias Guckenberger,et al.  Computed Tomography Radiomics Predicts HPV Status and Local Tumor Control After Definitive Radiochemotherapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Jinzhong Yang,et al.  Guidelines and Experience Using Imaging Biomarker Explorer (IBEX) for Radiomics. , 2018, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[16]  Benjamin Haibe-Kains,et al.  Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head & Neck cancer , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[17]  Peter A Balter,et al.  Impact of image preprocessing on the volume dependence and prognostic potential of radiomics features in non-small cell lung cancer , 2016 .

[18]  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.

[19]  Osama Mawlawi,et al.  Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prognostic Value of FDG PET Quantitative Imaging Features Combined with Clinical Prognostic Factors. , 2016, Radiology.

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

[21]  Brian O'Sullivan,et al.  Head and neck cancers—major changes in the American Joint Committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[22]  G. Feliciani,et al.  Radiomic Profiling of Head and Neck Cancer: 18F-FDG PET Texture Analysis as Predictor of Patient Survival , 2018, Contrast media & molecular imaging.

[23]  Laurence Court,et al.  Effect of tube current on computed tomography radiomic features , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[24]  Matthias Guckenberger,et al.  Comparison of PET and CT radiomics for prediction of local tumor control in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma , 2017, Acta oncologica.

[25]  M. Soussan,et al.  A Postreconstruction Harmonization Method for Multicenter Radiomic Studies in PET , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  R. Decker,et al.  Pretreatment Identification of Head and Neck Cancer Nodal Metastasis and Extranodal Extension Using Deep Learning Neural Networks , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[27]  O. Mawlawi,et al.  Prognostic value and reproducibility of pretreatment CT texture features in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[28]  Joseph O Deasy,et al.  Predictive modeling of outcomes following definitive chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer based on FDG-PET image characteristics , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  P. Lambin,et al.  Radiomic Machine-Learning Classifiers for Prognostic Biomarkers of Head and Neck Cancer , 2015, Front. Oncol..

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

[31]  M. M. Qureshi,et al.  CT Texture Analysis Potentially Predicts Local Failure in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Chemoradiotherapy , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[32]  M. Field,et al.  The role of deep learning and radiomic feature extraction in cancer-specific predictive modelling: a review , 2018, Translational Cancer Research.

[33]  Arman Rahmim,et al.  The impact of image reconstruction settings on 18F-FDG PET radiomic features: multi-scanner phantom and patient studies , 2017, European Radiology.

[34]  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.

[35]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels , 2017, Medical physics.

[36]  Shouhao Zhou,et al.  Comprehensive Investigation on Controlling for CT Imaging Variabilities in Radiomics Studies , 2018, Scientific Reports.

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

[38]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Variations in algorithm implementation among quantitative texture analysis software packages , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[39]  Heng Li,et al.  Practical guidelines for handling head and neck computed tomography artifacts for quantitative image analysis , 2018, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[40]  Prateek Prasanna,et al.  Radiomics and radiogenomics in lung cancer: A review for the clinician. , 2018, Lung cancer.