Tumour functional sphericity from PET images: prognostic value in NSCLC and impact of delineation method

PurposeSphericity has been proposed as a parameter for characterizing PET tumour volumes, with complementary prognostic value with respect to SUV and volume in both head and neck cancer and lung cancer. The objective of the present study was to investigate its dependency on tumour delineation and the resulting impact on its prognostic value.MethodsFive segmentation methods were considered: two thresholds (40% and 50% of SUVmax), ant colony optimization, fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian (FLAB), and gradient-aided region-based active contour. The accuracy of each method in extracting sphericity was evaluated using a dataset of 176 simulated, phantom and clinical PET images of tumours with associated ground truth. The prognostic value of sphericity and its complementary value with respect to volume for each segmentation method was evaluated in a cohort of 87 patients with stage II/III lung cancer.ResultsVolume and associated sphericity values were dependent on the segmentation method. The correlation between segmentation accuracy and sphericity error was moderate (|ρ| from 0.24 to 0.57). The accuracy in measuring sphericity was not dependent on volume (|ρ| < 0.4). In the patients with lung cancer, sphericity had prognostic value, although lower than that of volume, except for that derived using FLAB for which when combined with volume showed a small improvement over volume alone (hazard ratio 2.67, compared with 2.5). Substantial differences in patient prognosis stratification were observed depending on the segmentation method used.ConclusionTumour functional sphericity was found to be dependent on the segmentation method, although the accuracy in retrieving the true sphericity was not dependent on tumour volume. In addition, even accurate segmentation can lead to an inaccurate sphericity value, and vice versa. Sphericity had similar or lower prognostic value than volume alone in the patients with lung cancer, except when determined using the FLAB method for which there was a small improvement in stratification when the parameters were combined.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  D. Mariano-Goulart,et al.  Association between textural and morphological tumor indices on baseline PET‐CT and early metabolic response on interim PET‐CT in bulky malignant lymphomas , 2017, Medical physics.

[4]  F Hofheinz,et al.  Automatic volume delineation in oncological PET , 2011, Nuklearmedizin.

[5]  I. Apostolova,et al.  Asphericity of pretherapeutic tumour FDG uptake provides independent prognostic value in head-and-neck cancer , 2014, European Radiology.

[6]  Florent Tixier,et al.  Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

[8]  Irène Buvat,et al.  Understanding Changes in Tumor Texture Indices in PET: A Comparison Between Visual Assessment and Index Values in Simulated and Patient Data , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  Liane Oehme,et al.  Automatische Volumenabgrenzung in der onkologischen PET – Bewertung eines entsprechenden Software-Werkzeugs und Vergleich mit manueller Abgrenzung anhand klinischer Datensätze , 2012 .

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  I. Apostolova,et al.  Increased evidence for the prognostic value of primary tumor asphericity in pretherapeutic FDG PET for risk stratification in patients with head and neck cancer , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[14]  Christian Roux,et al.  A Fuzzy Locally Adaptive Bayesian Segmentation Approach for Volume Determination in PET , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  P. Lambin,et al.  Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Chintan Parmar,et al.  Associations between radiologist-defined semantic and automatically computed radiomic features in non-small cell lung cancer , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[17]  Robert J. Gillies,et al.  Quantitative Computed Tomographic Descriptors Associate Tumor Shape Complexity and Intratumor Heterogeneity with Prognosis in Lung Adenocarcinoma , 2015, PloS one.

[18]  Wei Lu,et al.  Toward a standard for the evaluation of PET‐Auto‐Segmentation methods following the recommendations of AAPM task group No. 211: Requirements and implementation , 2017, Medical physics.

[19]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

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

[21]  M. Hatt,et al.  Radiomics in PET/CT: More Than Meets the Eye? , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  S. Son,et al.  Quantification of Intratumoral Metabolic Macroheterogeneity on 18F-FDG PET/CT and Its Prognostic Significance in Pathologic N0 Squamous Cell Lung Carcinoma , 2016, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[23]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto‐segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211 , 2017, Medical physics.

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

[25]  Wolfgang Weber,et al.  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 , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  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.

[27]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  PET functional volume delineation using an Ant colony segmentation approach. , 2015 .

[28]  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.

[29]  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.

[30]  I. Apostolova,et al.  The asphericity of the metabolic tumour volume in NSCLC: correlation with histopathology and molecular markers , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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