Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver malignancies on contrast-enhanced CT imaging

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver cancers in patients who underwent consecutive contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with intravenous iodinated contrast within 2 weeks by chance.

Methods

The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the requirement for patients’ informed consent. Patients were included if they had a liver malignancy (liver metastasis, n = 22, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, n = 10, and hepatocellular carcinoma, n = 6), had two consecutive CECT within 14 days, and had no prior or intervening therapy. Liver tumors and liver parenchyma were segmented and radiomic features (n = 254) were extracted. The number of reproducible features (with concordance correlation coefficients > 0.9) was calculated for patient subgroups with different variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution.

Results

The number of reproducible radiomic features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rate and pixel resolution. When including all CECTs with injection rates differences of less than 15% vs. up to 50%, 63/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma and 68/254 vs. 50/254 features were reproducible for malignancies. When including all CT with pixel resolution differences of 0–5% or 0–15%, 20/254 vs. 0/254 features were reproducible for liver parenchyma; 34/254 liver malignancy features were reproducible with pixel differences up to 15%.

Conclusion

A greater number of liver malignancy radiomic features were reproducible compared to liver parenchyma features, but the proportion of reproducible features decreased with increasing variations in contrast injection rates and pixel resolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278(2):563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ (2013) Quantitative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology 269(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122697

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hunter LA, Krafft S, Stingo F, et al. (2013) High quality machine-robust image features: identification in nonsmall cell lung cancer computed tomography images. Med Phys 40(12):121916. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4829514

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, et al. (2013) Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol (Stockholm, Sweden) 52(7):1391–1397. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2013.812798

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sadot E, Simpson AL, Do RK, et al. (2015) Cholangiocarcinoma: correlation between molecular profiling and imaging phenotypes. PloS One 10(7):e0132953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, et al. (2007) Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol 25(6):675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ganeshan B, Abaleke S, Young RC, Chatwin CR, Miles KA (2010) Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage. Cancer Imaging 10:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2010.0021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, et al. (2013) Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 266(1):326–336. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ganeshan B, Panayiotou E, Burnand K, Dizdarevic S, Miles K (2012) Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur Radiol 22(4):796–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2319-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Narayan V, et al. (2016) Radiomic phenotype features predict pathological response in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 119(3):480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical T, Board on Health Care S, Board on Health Sciences P, Institute of M (2012) Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. National Academies Press (US). Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved., Washington (DC). https://doi.org/10.17226/13297

    Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Kadi OS (2010) Assessment of texture measures susceptibility to noise in conventional and contrast enhanced computed tomography lung tumour images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 34(6):494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.12.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Balagurunathan Y, Gu Y, Wang H, et al. (2014) Reproducibility and prognosis of quantitative features extracted from CT images. Transl Oncol 7(1):72–87

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balagurunathan Y, Kumar V, Gu Y, et al. (2014) Test-retest reproducibility analysis of lung CT image features. J Digit Imaging 27(6):805–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9716-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Summers RM (2017) Texture analysis in radiology: does the emperor have no clothes? Abdom Radiol (N Y) 42(2):342–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0950-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Solomon J, Mileto A, Nelson RC, Roy Choudhury K, Samei E (2016) Quantitative features of liver lesions, lung nodules, and renal stones at multi-detector row CT examinations: dependency on radiation dose and reconstruction algorithm. Radiology 279(1):185–194. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, et al. (2009) Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 252(1):263–272. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2522081593

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. American College of Radiology (2016) Committee on drugs and contrast media. ACR Man Contrast Media Version 10:2

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hermoye L, Laamari-Azjal I, Cao Z, et al. (2005) Liver segmentation in living liver transplant donors: comparison of semiautomatic and manual methods. Radiology 234(1):171–178. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2341031801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Simpson AL, Geller DA, Hemming AW, et al. (2014) Liver planning software accurately predicts postoperative liver volume and measures early regeneration. J Am Coll Surg 219(2):199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.027

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3(6):610–621. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang X, Tridandapani S, Beitler JJ, et al. (2012) Ultrasound GLCM texture analysis of radiation-induced parotid-gland injury in head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy: an in vivo study of late toxicity. Med Phys 39(9):5732–5739. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4747526

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Banik S, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JE (2013) Measures of angular spread and entropy for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8(1):121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-012-0681-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tang X (1998) Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans Image Process 7(11):1602–1609. https://doi.org/10.1109/83.725367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recognit 29(1):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-3203(95)00067-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pietikäinen M, Hadid A, Zhao G, Ahonen T (2011) Local binary patterns for still images. Computer vision using local binary patterns. London: Springer, pp 13–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Mehta R, Egiazarian KO (2013) Rotated local binary pattern (RLBP)-rotation invariant texture descriptor. In: ICPRAM, pp 497–502

  29. Al-Kadi OS, Watson D (2008) Texture analysis of aggressive and nonaggressive lung tumor CE CT images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(7):1822–1830. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2008.919735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Costa AF, Humpire-Mamani G, Traina AJM (2012) An efficient algorithm for fractal analysis of textures. In: Proceedings of the 2012 25th SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI), pp 39–46

  31. Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S, Mukhopadhyay S, Desautels JL (2012) Statistical measures of orientation of texture for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer. J Electron Imaging 21(3):033010-033011–033010-033013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S, Mukhopadhyay S, Desautels JL (2012) Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms using statistical measures of orientation of texture. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, p 831521

  33. Chakraborty J, Midya A, Mukhopadhyay S, Sadhu A (2013) Automatic characterization of masses in mammograms. In: IEEE 6th international conference on biomedical engineering and informatics, pp 111–115

  34. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45(1):255–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Symons R, Morris JZ, Wu CO, Pourmorteza A (2016) Coronary CT angiography: variability of CT scanners and readers in measurement of plaque volume. Radiology 281(3):737–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R (2010) Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 49(7):1012–1016. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2010.498437

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang J, Zhang L, Fave XJ, et al. (2016) Uncertainty analysis of quantitative imaging features extracted from contrast-enhanced CT in lung tumors. Comput Med Imaging Graph 48:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2015.12.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Joanne Chin for editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA

    Thomas Perrin, Abhishek Midya, Jayasree Chakraborty, William R. Jarnagin & Amber L. Simpson

  2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA

    Rikiya Yamashita, Tome Saidon & Richard K. G. Do

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA

    Mithat Gonen

Authors
  1. Thomas Perrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhishek Midya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rikiya Yamashita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jayasree Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tome Saidon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William R. Jarnagin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mithat Gonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Amber L. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Richard K. G. Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concepts and study design: MG, AS, RKGD; literature search: AM, RY, AS, RKGD; image review: TP, RY, RKGD; clinical information review: TP, RY, TS, RKGD; statistical analysis: AM, MG; manuscript drafting and edition: TP, AM, RY, AS, RKGD; approval of final version of submitted manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard K. G. Do.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded in part through the 2016 Society of Abdominal Radiology Wylie J. Dodds Research Award and the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 276 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perrin, T., Midya, A., Yamashita, R. et al. Short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver malignancies on contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Abdom Radiol 43, 3271–3278 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1600-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1600-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation