Reproducibility and non-redundancy of radiomic features extracted from arterial phase CT scans in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: impact of tumor segmentation variability.

Background The reproducibility and non-redundancy of radiomic features are challenges in accelerating the clinical translation of radiomics. In this study, we focused on the robustness and non-redundancy of radiomic features extracted from computed tomography (CT) scans in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with respect to different tumor segmentation methods. Methods Arterial enhanced CT images were retrospectively randomly obtained from 106 patients. As a training data set, 26 HCC patients were used to calculate the features' reproducibility and redundancy. Another data set (55 HCC patients and 25 healthy volunteers) was used for classification. The GrowCut and GraphCut semiautomatic segmentation methods were implemented in 3D Slicer software by two independent observers, and manual delineation was performed by five abdominal radiation oncologists to acquire the gross tumor volume (GTV). Seventy-one radiomic features were extracted from GTVs using Imaging Biomarker Explorer (IBEX) software, including 17 tumor intensity statistical features, 16 shape features and 38 textural features. For each radiomic feature, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and hierarchical clustering were used to quantify its reproducibility and redundancy. Features with ICC values greater than 0.75 were considered reproducible. To generate the number of non-redundancy feature subgroups, the R2 statistic method was used. Then, a classification model was built using a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm with 10-fold cross validation, and area under ROC curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the utility of non-redundant feature extraction by hierarchical clustering. Results The percentages of excellent reproducible features in the manual delineation group, GraphCut and GrowCut segmentation group were 69% [49], 73% [52] and 79% [56], respectively. Sixty-five percent [46] of the features showed strong robustness for all segmentation methods. The optimal number of cluster subgroup were 9, 13 and 11 for manual delineation, GraphCut and GrowCut segmentation, respectively. The optimal cluster subgroup number was 6 for all groups when the collectively high reproducibility features were selected for clustering. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of radiomics classification model with and without feature reduction for healthy liver and HCC had an AUC value of 0.857 and 0.721 respectively. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that variations exist in the reproducibility of quantitative imaging features extracted from tumor regions segmented using different methods. The reproducibility and non-redundancy of the radiomic features rely greatly on the tumor segmentation in HCC CT images. We recommend that the most reliable and uniform radiomic features should be selected in the clinical use of radiomics. Classification experiments with feature reduction showed that radiomic features were effective in identifying healthy liver and HCC.

[1]  H. Aerts,et al.  Applications and limitations of radiomics , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Marie-Pierre Jolly,et al.  Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in N-D images , 2001, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001.

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

[4]  Chintan Parmar,et al.  Associations of Radiomic Data Extracted from Static and Respiratory-Gated CT Scans with Disease Recurrence in Lung Cancer Patients Treated with SBRT , 2017, PloS one.

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

[6]  L. Fass Imaging and cancer: A review , 2008, Molecular oncology.

[7]  Howard Y. Chang,et al.  Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  N. Dubrawsky Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

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

[10]  Maria Antonietta Mazzei,et al.  The role of delta radiomics in gastric cancer. , 2018, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery.

[11]  Abass Alavi,et al.  Functional Imaging of Cancer with Emphasis on Molecular Techniques , 2007, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[12]  Lei Xing,et al.  Prognostic Imaging Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Development and Independent Validation on the Basis of Multiregion and Quantitative Analysis of MR Images. , 2016, Radiology.

[13]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics in China, 2015 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

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

[15]  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.

[16]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Are Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET Tumor Textural Features in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Associated with Response and Survival After Chemoradiotherapy? , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

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

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

[19]  Yang Yang,et al.  Radiomic analysis using contrast-enhanced CT: predict treatment response to pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy in gastric carcinoma with abdominal cavity metastasis. , 2018, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery.

[20]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[21]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2016 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[22]  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.

[23]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

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

[25]  V. P. Collins,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Lawrence H. Schwartz,et al.  Assessing Agreement between Radiomic Features Computed for Multiple CT Imaging Settings , 2016, PloS one.

[27]  Philippe Lambin,et al.  Is there a causal relationship between genetic changes and radiomics-based image features? An in vivo preclinical experiment with doxycycline inducible GADD34 tumor cells. , 2015, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

[29]  Andre Dekker,et al.  A semiautomatic CT-based ensemble segmentation of lung tumors: comparison with oncologists' delineations and with the surgical specimen. , 2012, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

[31]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

[32]  P. Lambin,et al.  CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. , 2015, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[33]  Jiazhou Wang,et al.  Reproducibility with repeat CT in radiomics study for rectal cancer , 2016, Oncotarget.

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

[35]  Claude B. Sirlin,et al.  Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis Using Texture Analysis on Combined-Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Images at 3.0T , 2015, BioMed research international.

[36]  Deukwoo Kwon,et al.  Association of Radiomics and Metabolic Tumor Volumes in Radiation Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

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

[39]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  Fast optimal leaf ordering for hierarchical clustering , 2001, ISMB.