Reliability of PET/CT Shape and Heterogeneity Features in Functional and Morphologic Components of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Tumors: A Repeatability Analysis in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort

The main purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of shape and heterogeneity features in both the PET and the low-dose CT components of PET/CT. A secondary objective was to investigate the impact of image quantization. Methods: A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant secondary analysis of deidentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test–retest datasets of 74 patients from multicenter Merck and American College of Radiology Imaging Network trials was performed. Metabolically active volumes were automatically delineated on PET with a fuzzy locally adaptive bayesian algorithm. Software was used to semiautomatically delineate the anatomic volumes on the low-dose CT component. Two quantization methods were considered: a quantization into a set number of bins (quantization B) and an alternative quantization with bins of fixed width (quantization W). Four shape descriptors, 10 first-order metrics, and 26 textural features were evaluated. Bland–Altman analysis was used to quantify repeatability. Features were subsequently categorized as very reliable, reliable, moderately reliable, or poorly reliable with respect to the corresponding volume variability. Results: Repeatability was highly variable among features. Numerous metrics were identified as poorly or moderately reliable. Others were reliable or very reliable in both modalities and in all categories (shape and first-, second-, and third-order metrics). Image quantization played a major role in feature repeatability. Features were more reliable in PET with quantization B, whereas quantization W showed better results in CT. Conclusion: The test–retest repeatability of shape and heterogeneity features in PET and low-dose CT varied greatly among metrics. The level of repeatability also depended strongly on the quantization step, with different optimal choices for each modality. The repeatability of PET and low-dose CT features should be carefully considered when selecting metrics to build multiparametric models.

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

[2]  Florent Tixier,et al.  Development of a nomogram combining clinical staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT image features in non-small-cell lung cancer stage I–III , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[3]  Bernd J. Pichler,et al.  Image-derived biomarkers and multimodal imaging strategies for lung cancer management , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[4]  Joel Karp,et al.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[6]  Georg Schramm,et al.  Quantitative assessment of the asphericity of pretherapeutic FDG uptake as an independent predictor of outcome in NSCLC , 2014, BMC Cancer.

[7]  Peter Balter,et al.  Can radiomics features be reproducibly measured from CBCT images for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? , 2015, Medical physics.

[8]  M. Martel,et al.  High quality machine-robust image features: identification in nonsmall cell lung cancer computed tomography images. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  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.

[10]  El Naqa,et al.  A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities , 2015 .

[11]  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.

[12]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  J. Bradley,et al.  Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. , 2012, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[15]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3′-Deoxy-3′-18F-Fluorothymidine PET Tumor Volume Measurements , 2010, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  Vicky Goh,et al.  The precision of textural analysis in 18F-FDG-PET scans of oesophageal cancer , 2015, European Radiology.

[17]  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.

[18]  Jinzhong Yang,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of quantitative imaging features extracted from contrast-enhanced CT in lung tumors , 2016, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[19]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer , 2013, Scientific Reports.

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

[22]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  Samuel H. Hawkins,et al.  Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images. , 2014, Translational oncology.

[26]  Noor Azina Ismail,et al.  Statistical Methods Used to Test for Agreement of Medical Instruments Measuring Continuous Variables in Method Comparison Studies: A Systematic Review , 2012, PloS one.

[27]  Floris H. P. van Velden,et al.  Test-Retest Variability of Various Quantitative Measures to Characterize Tracer Uptake and/or Tracer Uptake Heterogeneity in Metastasized Liver for Patients with Colorectal Carcinoma , 2014, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

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

[29]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future? , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[30]  Drew A. Torigian,et al.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective Assessment in 2 Multicenter Trials , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[32]  F E Turkheimer,et al.  Quantification of intra-tumour cell proliferation heterogeneity using imaging descriptors of 18F fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[34]  I. El Naqa,et al.  A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  Stephen S F Yip,et al.  Use of registration-based contour propagation in texture analysis for esophageal cancer pathologic response prediction , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  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.

[37]  Ross Berbeco,et al.  Comparison of Texture Features Derived from Static and Respiratory-Gated PET Images in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2014, PloS one.