Influence of Magnetic Field Strength on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics Features in Brain Imaging, an
heterogeneous phantom
homogeneous phantom
magnetic fields
magnetic resonance imaging
texture
tissue features
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
03
2020
accepted:
23
11
2020
entrez:
8
2
2021
pubmed:
9
2
2021
medline:
9
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development and clinical adoption of quantitative imaging biomarkers (radiomics) has established the need for the identification of parameters altering radiomics reproducibility. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of magnetic field strength on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics features in neuroradiology clinical practice. T1 3D SPGR sequence was acquired on two phantoms and 10 healthy volunteers with two clinical MR devices from the same manufacturer using two different magnetic fields (1.5 and 3T). Phantoms varied in terms of gadolinium concentrations and textural heterogeneity. 27 regions of interest were segmented (phantom: 21, volunteers: 6) using the LIFEX software. 34 features were analyzed. In the phantom dataset, 10 (67%) out of 15 radiomics features were significantly different when measured at 1.5T or 3T (student's t-test, p < 0.05). Gray levels resampling, and pixel size also influence part of texture features. These findings were validated in healthy volunteers. According to daily used protocols for clinical examinations, radiomic features extracted on 1.5T should not be used interchangeably with 3T when evaluating texture features. Such confounding factor should be adjusted when adapting the results of a study to a different platform, or when designing a multicentric trial.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The development and clinical adoption of quantitative imaging biomarkers (radiomics) has established the need for the identification of parameters altering radiomics reproducibility. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of magnetic field strength on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics features in neuroradiology clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
T1 3D SPGR sequence was acquired on two phantoms and 10 healthy volunteers with two clinical MR devices from the same manufacturer using two different magnetic fields (1.5 and 3T). Phantoms varied in terms of gadolinium concentrations and textural heterogeneity. 27 regions of interest were segmented (phantom: 21, volunteers: 6) using the LIFEX software. 34 features were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the phantom dataset, 10 (67%) out of 15 radiomics features were significantly different when measured at 1.5T or 3T (student's t-test, p < 0.05). Gray levels resampling, and pixel size also influence part of texture features. These findings were validated in healthy volunteers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
According to daily used protocols for clinical examinations, radiomic features extracted on 1.5T should not be used interchangeably with 3T when evaluating texture features. Such confounding factor should be adjusted when adapting the results of a study to a different platform, or when designing a multicentric trial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33552944
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.541663
pmc: PMC7855708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
541663Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Ammari, Pitre-Champagnat, Dercle, Chouzenoux, Moalla, Reuze, Talbot, Mokoyoko, Hadchiti, Diffetocq, Volk, El Haik, Lakiss, Balleyguier, Lassau and Bidault.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jan;21(1):179-190
pubmed: 31880401
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 May;47(5):1380-1387
pubmed: 28926163
Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jan;22(1):81-91
pubmed: 14972397
Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Sep;17(7):1025-31
pubmed: 10463653
Med Phys. 2009 Apr;36(4):1236-43
pubmed: 19472631
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Jul 7;61(13):R150-66
pubmed: 27269645
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Aug 1;95(5):1544-1545
pubmed: 27479727
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 16;7(1):13206
pubmed: 29038455
Sci Rep. 2015 Jun 05;5:11044
pubmed: 26251068
Cancer Radiother. 2017 Oct;21(6-7):648-654
pubmed: 28865968
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1050-1062
pubmed: 28112418
Transl Oncol. 2016 Apr;9(2):155-162
pubmed: 27084432
Phys Med. 2020 Mar;71:71-81
pubmed: 32092688
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 11;7(1):7952
pubmed: 28801575
J Nucl Med. 2014 Mar;55(3):414-22
pubmed: 24549286
Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1616-1624
pubmed: 30105410
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 23;10(1):12340
pubmed: 32704007
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):5116-5123
pubmed: 31539450
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 4;7(1):10353
pubmed: 28871110
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Dec 15;24(24):6288-6299
pubmed: 30054278
Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(6):817-33
pubmed: 8371637
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Dec;46(13):2638-2655
pubmed: 31240330
Eur Radiol. 2017 Nov;27(11):4498-4509
pubmed: 28567548
Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Nov 14;2(1):36
pubmed: 30426318
Med Phys. 2011 Sep;38(9):5058-66
pubmed: 21978050
J Nucl Med. 2015 Nov;56(11):1642-4
pubmed: 26294296
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;28(6):1191-1206
pubmed: 28168275
J Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;58(3):387-392
pubmed: 27754906
Magn Reson Med. 1994 Jul;32(1):121-8
pubmed: 8084227
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Apr;6(2):024502
pubmed: 31259199
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 23;8(1):5087
pubmed: 29572492
Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):616-22
pubmed: 15070262
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;14(12):749-762
pubmed: 28975929
Chin Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug;6(4):40
pubmed: 28841802