Assessing robustness of radiomic features by image perturbation.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 01 2019
24 01 2019
Historique:
received:
29
06
2018
accepted:
19
11
2018
entrez:
26
1
2019
pubmed:
27
1
2019
medline:
27
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Image features need to be robust against differences in positioning, acquisition and segmentation to ensure reproducibility. Radiomic models that only include robust features can be used to analyse new images, whereas models with non-robust features may fail to predict the outcome of interest accurately. Test-retest imaging is recommended to assess robustness, but may not be available for the phenotype of interest. We therefore investigated 18 combinations of image perturbations to determine feature robustness, based on noise addition (N), translation (T), rotation (R), volume growth/shrinkage (V) and supervoxel-based contour randomisation (C). Test-retest and perturbation robustness were compared for combined total of 4032 morphological, statistical and texture features that were computed from the gross tumour volume in two cohorts with computed tomography imaging: I) 31 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients; II): 19 head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. Robustness was determined using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the intraclass correlation coefficient (1, 1). Features with CI ≥ 0:90 were considered robust. The NTCV, TCV, RNCV and RCV perturbation chain produced similar results and identified the fewest false positive robust features (NSCLC: 0.2-0.9%; HNSCC: 1.7-1.9%). Thus, these perturbation chains may be used as an alternative to test-retest imaging to assess feature robustness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30679599
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36938-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-018-36938-4
pmc: PMC6345842
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
614Références
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jan;22(1):81-91
pubmed: 14972397
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):263-72
pubmed: 19561260
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Mar;48(4):441-6
pubmed: 22257792
J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):693-700
pubmed: 22454484
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2012 Nov;34(11):2274-82
pubmed: 22641706
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1234-48
pubmed: 22898692
J Digit Imaging. 2013 Dec;26(6):1045-57
pubmed: 23884657
Acta Oncol. 2013 Oct;52(7):1391-7
pubmed: 24047337
Transl Oncol. 2014 Feb 01;7(1):72-87
pubmed: 24772210
J Nucl Med. 2015 Jan;56(1):38-44
pubmed: 25500829
Invest Radiol. 2015 Nov;50(11):757-65
pubmed: 26115366
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 21;60(14):5471-96
pubmed: 26119045
Mol Imaging Biol. 2016 Oct;18(5):788-95
pubmed: 26920355
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 24;6:23428
pubmed: 27009765
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jul 7;61(13):R150-66
pubmed: 27269645
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 10;6:34921
pubmed: 27721474
J Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;58(3):406-411
pubmed: 27765856
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1050-1062
pubmed: 28112418
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Sep;124(3):533-540
pubmed: 28843726
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 31;7(1):10117
pubmed: 28860628
Acta Oncol. 2017 Nov;56(11):1544-1553
pubmed: 28885084
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0178524
pubmed: 28934225
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;14(12):749-762
pubmed: 28975929
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 16;7(1):13206
pubmed: 29038455
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):189-193
pubmed: 29175982
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 5;8(1):2354
pubmed: 29403060
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jan;5(1):011020
pubmed: 29487877
Acta Oncol. 2018 Aug;57(8):1070-1074
pubmed: 29513054
Tomography. 2016 Dec;2(4):361-365
pubmed: 30042967
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):1143-1158
pubmed: 30170872