Radiomics robustness assessment and classification evaluation: A two-stage method demonstrated on multivendor FFDM.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Breast Neoplasms
/ classification
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Female
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
Humans
Mammography
/ methods
Middle Aged
ROC Curve
Radiographic Image Enhancement
/ methods
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Risk Assessment
/ methods
breast cancer
radiomics
robustness
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
22
07
2018
revised:
12
02
2019
accepted:
13
02
2019
pubmed:
26
2
2019
medline:
13
9
2019
entrez:
26
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiomic texture analysis is typically performed on images acquired under specific, homogeneous imaging conditions. These controlled conditions may not be representative of the range of imaging conditions implemented clinically. We aim to develop a two-stage method of radiomic texture analysis that incorporates the reproducibility of individual texture features across imaging conditions to guide the development of texture signatures which are robust across mammography unit vendors. Full-field digital mammograms were retrospectively collected for women who underwent screening mammography on both a Hologic Lorad Selenia and GE Senographe 2000D system. Radiomic features were calculated on manually placed regions of interest in each image. In stage one (robustness assessment), we identified a set of nonredundant features that were reproducible across the two different vendors. This was achieved through hierarchical clustering and application of robustness metrics. In stage two (classification evaluation), we performed stepwise feature selection and leave-one-out quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) to construct radiomic signatures. We refer to this two-state method as robustness assessment, classification evaluation (RACE). These radiomic signatures were used to classify the risk of breast cancer through receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, using the area under the ROC curve as a figure of merit in the task of distinguishing between women with and without high-risk factors present. Generalizability was investigated by comparing the classification performance of a feature set on the images from which they were selected (intravendor) to the classification performance on images from the vendor on which it was not selected (intervendor). Intervendor and intravendor performances were also compared to the performance obtained by implementing ComBat, a feature-level harmonization method and to the performance by implementing ComBat followed by RACE. Generalizability, defined as the difference between intervendor and intravendor classification performance, was shown to monotonically decrease as the number of clusters used in stage one increased (Mann-Kendall P < 0.001). Intravendor performance was not shown to be statistically different from ComBat harmonization while intervendor performance was significantly higher than ComBat. No significant difference was observed between either of the single methods and the use of ComBat followed by RACE. A two-stage method for robust radiomic signature construction is proposed and demonstrated in the task of breast cancer risk assessment. The proposed method was used to assess generalizability of radiomic texture signatures at varying levels of feature robustness criteria. The results suggest that generalizability of feature sets monotonically decreases as reproducibility of features decreases. This trend suggests that considerations of feature robustness in feature selection methodology could improve classifier generalizability in multifarious full-field digital mammography datasets collected on various vendor units. Additionally, harmonization methods such as ComBat may hold utility in classification schemes and should continue to be investigated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30802972
doi: 10.1002/mp.13455
pmc: PMC6510593
mid: NIHMS1014020
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2145-2156Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : T32 EB002103
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : F31 CA228247
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA089452
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : T32 EB002103
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : U01 195564
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA195564
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):165-71
pubmed: 21813743
Biostatistics. 2007 Jan;8(1):118-27
pubmed: 16632515
Epidemiol Rev. 1993;15(1):196-208
pubmed: 8405204
Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):549-55
pubmed: 15070253
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
pubmed: 17229950
Mol Imaging Biol. 2016 Dec;18(6):935-945
pubmed: 27324369
Radiology. 1995 Jun;195(3):639-44
pubmed: 7753987
Cancer. 1991 Jun 1;67(11):2833-8
pubmed: 2025849
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2007 Dec;24(12):B52-60
pubmed: 18059914
Acad Radiol. 2007 May;14(5):513-21
pubmed: 17434064
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0178524
pubmed: 28934225
Oncotarget. 2018 Jul 20;9(56):30855-30868
pubmed: 30112113
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2013;15:327-57
pubmed: 23683087
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 May 3;87(9):670-5
pubmed: 7752271
Bioinformatics. 2005 Apr 15;21(8):1509-15
pubmed: 15572470
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1050-1062
pubmed: 28112418
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):75-89
pubmed: 17392385
Med Phys. 2001 Apr;28(4):419-37
pubmed: 11339738
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 24;6:23428
pubmed: 27009765
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jun;15(6):1159-69
pubmed: 16775176
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Mar 04;107(5):
pubmed: 25745020
Invest Radiol. 2011 Mar;46(3):160-8
pubmed: 21102348
J Digit Imaging. 2008 Jun;21(2):145-52
pubmed: 18175183
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):362-9
pubmed: 20093597
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jan;5(1):011002
pubmed: 28948196
Psychol Bull. 1960 Jul;57:318-28
pubmed: 14440422
Cancer Imaging. 2013 Sep 23;13(3):400-6
pubmed: 24061266
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Mar;114(3):345-50
pubmed: 25746350
Med Decis Making. 1998 Jan-Mar;18(1):110-21
pubmed: 9456215
Invest Radiol. 2015 Nov;50(11):757-65
pubmed: 26115366
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014 Oct;1(3):031009
pubmed: 26158050
Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):658-63
pubmed: 21712474
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 24;10(11):e0143308
pubmed: 26600392
Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):121916
pubmed: 24320527
Med Phys. 2015 Dec;42(12):6784-97
pubmed: 26632036
J Nucl Med. 2018 Aug;59(8):1321-1328
pubmed: 29301932
Med Phys. 2008 Feb;35(2):456-63
pubmed: 18383665