Segmentation Uncertainty Estimation as a Sanity Check for Image Biomarker Studies.
image biomarkers
prognostic modeling
radiomics
radiomics harmonization
uncertainty
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Mar 2022
02 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
15
01
2022
revised:
25
02
2022
accepted:
28
02
2022
entrez:
10
3
2022
pubmed:
11
3
2022
medline:
11
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Problem. Image biomarker analysis, also known as radiomics, is a tool for tissue characterization and treatment prognosis that relies on routinely acquired clinical images and delineations. Due to the uncertainty in image acquisition, processing, and segmentation (delineation) protocols, radiomics often lack reproducibility. Radiomics harmonization techniques have been proposed as a solution to reduce these sources of uncertainty and/or their influence on the prognostic model performance. A relevant question is how to estimate the protocol-induced uncertainty of a specific image biomarker, what the effect is on the model performance, and how to optimize the model given the uncertainty. Methods. Two non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohorts, composed of 421 and 240 patients, respectively, were used for training and testing. Per patient, a Monte Carlo algorithm was used to generate three hundred synthetic contours with a surface dice tolerance measure of less than 1.18 mm with respect to the original GTV. These contours were subsequently used to derive 104 radiomic features, which were ranked on their relative sensitivity to contour perturbation, expressed in the parameter η. The top four (low η) and the bottom four (high η) features were selected for two models based on the Cox proportional hazards model. To investigate the influence of segmentation uncertainty on the prognostic model, we trained and tested the setup in 5000 augmented realizations (using a Monte Carlo sampling method); the log-rank test was used to assess the stratification performance and stability of segmentation uncertainty. Results. Although both low and high η setup showed significant testing set log-rank p-values (p = 0.01) in the original GTV delineations (without segmentation uncertainty introduced), in the model with high uncertainty, to effect ratio, only around 30% of the augmented realizations resulted in model performance with p < 0.05 in the test set. In contrast, the low η setup performed with a log-rank p < 0.05 in 90% of the augmented realizations. Moreover, the high η setup classification was uncertain in its predictions for 50% of the subjects in the testing set (for 80% agreement rate), whereas the low η setup was uncertain only in 10% of the cases. Discussion. Estimating image biomarker model performance based only on the original GTV segmentation, without considering segmentation, uncertainty may be deceiving. The model might result in a significant stratification performance, but can be unstable for delineation variations, which are inherent to manual segmentation. Simulating segmentation uncertainty using the method described allows for more stable image biomarker estimation, selection, and model development. The segmentation uncertainty estimation method described here is universal and can be extended to estimate other protocol uncertainties (such as image acquisition and pre-processing).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35267597
pii: cancers14051288
doi: 10.3390/cancers14051288
pmc: PMC8909427
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Dutch Research Council
ID : 14930
Pays : Netherlands
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 12;23(7):e26151
pubmed: 34255661
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 24;9(1):614
pubmed: 30679599
J Pers Med. 2021 Aug 27;11(9):
pubmed: 34575619
Sci Rep. 2013 Dec 18;3:3529
pubmed: 24346241
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul 16;19:33-38
pubmed: 31417963
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021 Nov 09;20:69-75
pubmed: 34816024
J Nucl Med. 2018 Aug;59(8):1321-1328
pubmed: 29301932
Lancet Digit Health. 2019 Jul;1(3):e106-e107
pubmed: 33323257
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021 Oct 09;20:30-33
pubmed: 34667885
Cancer Res. 2017 Nov 1;77(21):e104-e107
pubmed: 29092951
Sci Data. 2019 Oct 22;6(1):218
pubmed: 31641134
Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 03;5:4006
pubmed: 24892406
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jan;130:2-9
pubmed: 30416044