46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping.

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Radiology
      Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Radiomic features may quantify characteristics present in medical imaging. However, the lack of standardized definitions and validated reference values have hampered clinical use. Purpose To standardize a set of 174 radiomic features. Materials and Methods Radiomic features were assessed in three phases. In phase I, 487 features were derived from the basic set of 174 features. Twenty-five research teams with unique radiomics software implementations computed feature values directly from a digital phantom, without any additional image processing. In phase II, 15 teams computed values for 1347 derived features using a CT image of a patient with lung cancer and predefined image processing configurations. In both phases, consensus among the teams on the validity of tentative reference values was measured through the frequency of the modal value and classified as follows: less than three matches, weak; three to five matches, moderate; six to nine matches, strong; 10 or more matches, very strong. In the final phase (phase III), a public data set of multimodality images (CT, fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and T1-weighted MRI) from 51 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma was used to prospectively assess reproducibility of standardized features. Results Consensus on reference values was initially weak for 232 of 302 features (76.8%) at phase I and 703 of 1075 features (65.4%) at phase II. At the final iteration, weak consensus remained for only two of 487 features (0.4%) at phase I and 19 of 1347 features (1.4%) at phase II. Strong or better consensus was achieved for 463 of 487 features (95.1%) at phase I and 1220 of 1347 features (90.6%) at phase II. Overall, 169 of 174 features were standardized in the first two phases. In the final validation phase (phase III), most of the 169 standardized features could be excellently reproduced (166 with CT; 164 with PET; and 164 with MRI). Conclusion A set of 169 radiomics features was standardized, which enabled verification and calibration of different radiomics software. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kuhl and Truhn in this issue.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Radiology
          Radiology
          Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
          1527-1315
          0033-8419
          May 2020
          : 295
          : 2
          Affiliations
          [1 ] From OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Fetscherstr 74, PF 41, 01307 Dresden, Germany (A.Z., S. Leger, E.G.C.T., C.R., S. Löck); National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (A.Z.); Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden and Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany (A.Z., S. Leger, E.G.C.T.); German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (A.Z., S. Leger, E.G.C.T., C.R., S. Löck); Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Canada (M.V., I.E.N.); Image Response Assessment Team Core Facility, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla (M.A.A.); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (H.J.W.L.A.); Institute of Information Systems, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Sierre, Switzerland (V.A., A.D., H.M.); Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (A.A.); Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (S.A.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (S.A., A.R.); Center for Biomedical image Computing and Analytics (CBICA), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.B., C.D., S.M.H., S.P.); Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.B., C.D., S.M.H., S.P.); Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.B.); Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands (R.J.B., R.B., E.A.G.P.); Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre (VUMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (M.B., M.Guckenberger, S.T.L.); Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy (L.B., N.D., R.G., J.L., V.V.); Laboratoire d'Imagerie Translationnelle en Oncologie, Université Paris Saclay, Inserm, Institut Curie, Orsay, France (I.B., C.N., F.O.); Cancer Imaging Dept, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom (G.J.R.C., V.G., M.M.S.); Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland (A.D.); Laboratory of Medical Information Processing (LaTIM)-team ACTION (image-guided therapeutic action in oncology), INSERM, UMR 1101, IBSAM, UBO, UBL, Brest, France (M.C.D., M.H., T.U.); Department of Radiation Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.V.D.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (S.E., S.N.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (I.E.N., A.U.K.R.); Surgical Planning Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (A.Y.F.); Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla (R.J.G.); Department of Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (M. Götz, F.I., K.H.M.H., J.S.); The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands (P.L., R.T.H.L.); Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Germany (F.L., J.S.F., D.T.); Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway (A.L.); Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, Calif (O.M.); University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (H.M.); Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (S.N.); Department of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics Research), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (S.N.); Departments of Radiology and Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (A.R.); Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (A.U.K.R.); Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands (N.M.S., R.J.H.M.S., L.V.v.D.); School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom (E.S., P.W.); Department of Medical Physics, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom (E.S.); Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany (E.G.C.T., C.R., S. Löck), Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany (E.G.C.T., C.R.); Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Milétrie, Poitiers, France (T.U.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.v.G.); GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (J.v.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (J.v.G.); and Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands (F.H.P.v.V.).
          Article
          10.1148/radiol.2020191145
          7193906
          32154773
          9e0c9307-4959-4f2c-b1d5-826e416422c1
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article