Challenges and caveats of a multi-center retrospective radiomics study: an example of early treatment response assessment for NSCLC patients using FDG-PET/CT radiomics

Background Prognostic models based on individual patient characteristics can improve treatment decisions and outcome in the future. In many (radiomic) studies, small size and heterogeneity of datasets is a challenge that often limits performance and potential clinical applicability of these models. The current study is example of a retrospective multi-centric study with challenges and caveats. To highlight common issues and emphasize potential pitfalls, we aimed for an extensive analysis of these multi-center pre-treatment datasets, with an additional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan acquired during treatment. Methods The dataset consisted of 138 stage II-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from four different cohorts acquired from three different institutes. The differences between the cohorts were compared in terms of clinical characteristics and using the so-called ‘cohort differences model’ approach. Moreover, the potential prognostic performances for overall survival of radiomic features extracted from CT or FDG-PET, or relative or absolute differences between the scans at the two time points, were assessed using the LASSO regression method. Furthermore, the performances of five different classifiers were evaluated for all image sets. Results The individual cohorts substantially differed in terms of patient characteristics. Moreover, the cohort differences model indicated statistically significant differences between the cohorts. Neither LASSO nor any of the tested classifiers resulted in a clinical relevant prognostic model that could be validated on the available datasets. Conclusion The results imply that the study might have been influenced by a limited sample size, heterogeneous patient characteristics, and inconsistent imaging parameters. No prognostic performance of FDG-PET or CT based radiomics models can be reported. This study highlights the necessity of extensive evaluations of cohorts and of validation datasets, especially in retrospective multi-centric datasets.

[1]  V. Valentini,et al.  18 F-FDG PET-CT during chemo-radiotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: the early metabolic response correlates with the delivered radiation dose , 2012, Radiation Oncology.

[2]  I. Apostolova,et al.  Comparative evaluation of SUV, tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR), and dual time point measurements for assessment of the metabolic uptake rate in FDG PET , 2016, EJNMMI Research.

[3]  Thomas Carlier,et al.  Revisiting the Robustness of PET-Based Textural Features in the Context of Multi-Centric Trials , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  W. Niessen,et al.  Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Peter Smeets,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  W. Oyen,et al.  18F-FDG PET Early Response Evaluation of Locally Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  R. Rami-Porta,et al.  Primary tumour standardised uptake value is prognostic in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multivariate pooled analysis of individual data , 2015, European Respiratory Journal.

[8]  Steffen Löck,et al.  Image biomarker standardisation initiative - feature definitions , 2016, ArXiv.

[9]  Karel G M Moons,et al.  A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Dimitrios I. Fotiadis,et al.  Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction , 2014, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[11]  J. E. van Timmeren,et al.  Influence of gray level discretization on radiomic feature stability for different CT scanners, tube currents and slice thicknesses: a comprehensive phantom study , 2017, Acta oncologica.

[12]  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.

[13]  Timothy Solberg,et al.  Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo)radiotherapy: An empirical comparison of classifiers , 2018, Medical physics.

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

[15]  F. Harrell,et al.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests. , 1982, JAMA.

[16]  Fabrice Denis,et al.  Early Assessment of Metabolic Response by 18F-FDG PET During Concomitant Radiochemotherapy of Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma Is Associated With Survival: A Retrospective Single-Center Study , 2015, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[17]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Prospective validation of pathologic complete response models in rectal cancer: Transferability and reproducibility , 2017, Medical physics.

[18]  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.

[19]  P. Lambin,et al.  Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology—multifactorial decision support systems , 2013, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Baosheng Li,et al.  Standard uptake value and metabolic tumor volume of 18F-FDG PET/CT predict short-term outcome early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

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

[23]  R. Timmerman,et al.  Role of interim 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the early prediction of clinical outcomes of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) during radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy. A systematic review , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

[25]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. , 2010, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[26]  P. Lambin,et al.  Quality assessment of positron emission tomography scans: recommendations for future multicentre trials , 2017, Acta oncologica.

[27]  Fei Yang,et al.  Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards , 2015, Journal of medical imaging.

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

[29]  Carsten Brink,et al.  Survival prediction of non-small cell lung cancer patients using radiomics analyses of cone-beam CT images. , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

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

[32]  L Cozzi,et al.  PET Radiomics in NSCLC: state of the art and a proposal for harmonization of methodology , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[33]  Johannes H A M Kaanders,et al.  Comparison of Tumor Volumes Derived from Glucose Metabolic Rate Maps and SUV Maps in Dynamic 18F-FDG PET , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[34]  G. Russo,et al.  Predictive and Prognostic Value of Early Disease Progression by PET Evaluation in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2016, Oncology.

[35]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[36]  Philippe Lambin,et al.  Response Assessment Using 18F-FDG PET Early in the Course of Radiotherapy Correlates with Survival in Advanced-Stage Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  P. Royston,et al.  External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[38]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Radiomics: the process and the challenges. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[39]  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.

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

[41]  P. Lambin,et al.  Robust Radiomics Feature Quantification Using Semiautomatic Volumetric Segmentation , 2014, PloS one.

[42]  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.

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

[44]  P. Lambin,et al.  Decision support systems for personalized and participative radiation oncology☆ , 2017, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[45]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2003, Technometrics.

[46]  P. Lambin,et al.  Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine , 2017, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[47]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[48]  Steffen Löck,et al.  Why validation of prognostic models matters? , 2018, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.