Search

Objective: We studied the repeatability and the relative intra-scan variability across acquisition protocols in CT using phantom and unenhanced abdominal series., Methods: We used 17 CT scans from the Credence Cartridge Radiomics Phantom database and 20 unenhanced multi-site non-pathologic abdominal patient series for which we measured spleen and liver tissues. We performed multiple measurements in extracting 9 radiomics features. We defined a "tandem" as the measurement of a given tissue (or material) by a given radiomics. For each tandem, we assessed the proportion of the variability attributable to repetitions, acquisition protocols, material, or patient. We analyzed the distribution of the intra-scan correlation between pairs of tandems and checked the impact of correlation coefficient greater than 0.90 in comparing paired and unpaired differences., Results: The repeatability of radiomics features depends on the measured material; 56% of tandems were highly repeatable. Histogram-derived radiomics were generally less repeatable. Nearly 60% of relative radiomics measurements had a correlation coefficient higher than 0.90 allowing paired measurements to improve reliability in detecting the difference between two materials. The analysis of liver and spleen tissues showed that measurement variability was negligible with respect to other variabilities. As for phantom data, we found that gray level zone length matrix (GLZLM)-derived radiomics and gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM)-derived radiomics were the most correlating features. For these features, relative intra-scan measurements improved the detection of different materials or tissues., Conclusions: We identified radiomics features for which the intra-scan measurements between tissues are linearly correlated. This property represents an opportunity to improve tissue characterization and inter-site harmonization., Key Points: • The repeatability of radiomics features on CT depends on the measured material or tissue. • Some tandems of radiomics features/tissues are linearly affected by the variability of acquisition protocols on CT. • Relative intra-scan measurements are an opportunity for improving quantitative imaging on CT., (© 2021. European Society of Radiology.)

Objectives: Following the craze for radiomic features (RF), their lack of reliability raised the question of the generalizability of classification models. Inter-site harmonization of images therefore becomes a central issue. We compared RF harmonization processing designed to detect liver diseases in CT images., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 76 multi-center portal CT series of non-diseased (NDL) and diseased liver (DL) patients. In each series, we positioned volumes of interest in spleen and liver, then extracted 9 RF (histogram and texture). We evaluated two RF harmonization approaches. First, in each series, we computed the Z-score of liver measurements based on those computed in the spleen. Second, we evaluated the ComBat method according to each imaging center; parameters were computed in the spleen and applied to the liver. We compared RF distributions and classification performances before/after harmonization. We classified NDL versus spleen and versus DL tissues., Results: The RF distributions were all different between liver and spleen (p < 0.05). The Z-score harmonization outperformed for the detection of liver versus spleen: AUC = 93.1% (p < 0.001). For the detection of DL versus NDL, in a case/control setting, we found no differences between the harmonizations: mean AUC = 73.6% (p = 0.49). Using the whole datasets, the performances were improved using ComBat (p = 0.05) AUC = 82.4% and degraded with Z-score AUC = 67.4% (p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Data harmonization requires to first focus on data structuring to not degrade the performances of subsequent classifications. Liver tissue classification after harmonization of spleen-based RF is a promising strategy for improving the detection of DL tissue., Key Points: • Variability of acquisition parameter makes radiomics of CT features non-reproducible. • Data harmonization can help circumvent the inter-site variability of acquisition protocols. • Inter-site harmonization must be carefully implemented and requires designing consistent data sets., (© 2021. European Society of Radiology.)

Objective: The measure of body surface area (BSA) is a standard for planning optimal dosing in oncology. This index is derived from a model having questionable performances. In this study, we proposed measurement of BSA from whole body CT images (iBSA). We tested the reliability of iBSA assessments and simulated the impact of our approach on patient chemotherapy dosage planning., Methods: We first evaluated accuracy and precision of iBSA in measuring 14 phantom and 11 CT test-retest images.Secondly, we retrospectively analyzed 26 whole body PET-CT scans to evaluate inter-method variability between iBSA and the most used anthropomorphic models, notably the "Du Bois and Du Bois" model. Finally, we simulated the impact on chemotherapy dose planning of capecitabine based on iBSA., Results: Precision and accuracy of iBSA measurement featured a standard deviation of 1.11% and a mean error of 1.53%. Inter-method variability between iBSA and "Du Bois and Du Bois" assessment featured a standard deviation of 4.11% leading to a reclassification rate of capecitabine of 32.5%., Conclusions: iBSA could help the oncologist in standardizing assessments for chemotherapy planning. iBSA could also be relevant for applications such as comprehensive body composition and provide a sensitive measurement for changes related to nutritional intake or other metabolism.

Rationale and Objectives: Quantifying changes in lung tumor volume is important for diagnosis, therapy planning, and evaluation of response to therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of multiple algorithms on a reference data set. The study was organized by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA)., Materials and Methods: The study was organized as a public challenge. Computed tomography scans of synthetic lung tumors in an anthropomorphic phantom were acquired by the Food and Drug Administration. Tumors varied in size, shape, and radiodensity. Participants applied their own semi-automated volume estimation algorithms that either did not allow or allowed post-segmentation correction (type 1 or 2, respectively). Statistical analysis of accuracy (percent bias) and precision (repeatability and reproducibility) was conducted across algorithms, as well as across nodule characteristics, slice thickness, and algorithm type., Results: Eighty-four percent of volume measurements of QIBA-compliant tumors were within 15% of the true volume, ranging from 66% to 93% across algorithms, compared to 61% of volume measurements for all tumors (ranging from 37% to 84%). Algorithm type did not affect bias substantially; however, it was an important factor in measurement precision. Algorithm precision was notably better as tumor size increased, worse for irregularly shaped tumors, and on the average better for type 1 algorithms. Over all nodules meeting the QIBA Profile, precision, as measured by the repeatability coefficient, was 9.0% compared to 18.4% overall., Conclusion: The results achieved in this study, using a heterogeneous set of measurement algorithms, support QIBA quantitative performance claims in terms of volume measurement repeatability for nodules meeting the QIBA Profile criteria., (Copyright © 2016 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: Tumor volume change has potential as a biomarker for diagnosis, therapy planning, and treatment response. Precision was evaluated and compared among semiautomated lung tumor volume measurement algorithms from clinical thoracic computed tomography data sets. The results inform approaches and testing requirements for establishing conformance with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) Computed Tomography Volumetry Profile., Materials and Methods: Industry and academic groups participated in a challenge study. Intra-algorithm repeatability and inter-algorithm reproducibility were estimated. Relative magnitudes of various sources of variability were estimated using a linear mixed effects model. Segmentation boundaries were compared to provide a basis on which to optimize algorithm performance for developers., Results: Intra-algorithm repeatability ranged from 13% (best performing) to 100% (least performing), with most algorithms demonstrating improved repeatability as the tumor size increased. Inter-algorithm reproducibility was determined in three partitions and was found to be 58% for the four best performing groups, 70% for the set of groups meeting repeatability requirements, and 84% when all groups but the least performer were included. The best performing partition performed markedly better on tumors with equivalent diameters greater than 40 mm. Larger tumors benefitted by human editing but smaller tumors did not. One-fifth to one-half of the total variability came from sources independent of the algorithms. Segmentation boundaries differed substantially, not ony in overall volume but also in detail., Conclusions: Nine of the 12 participating algorithms pass precision requirements similar to what is indicated in the QIBA Profile, with the caveat that the present study was not designed to explicitly evaluate algorithm profile conformance. Change in tumor volume can be measured with confidence to within ±14% using any of these nine algorithms on tumor sizes greater than 10 mm. No partition of the algorithms was able to meet the QIBA requirements for interchangeability down to 10 mm, although the partition comprising best performing algorithms did meet this requirement for a tumor size of greater than approximately 40 mm., (Copyright © 2015 AUR. All rights reserved.)