Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26242464›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis.

Ralph T H Leijenaar, Georgi Nalbantov, Sara Carvalho, Wouter J C van Elmpt, Esther G C Troost, Ronald Boellaard, Hugo J W L Aerts, Robert J Gillies, Philippe Lambin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 230 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
230citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

230 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Radiomic Analysis of Striatal [Molecular imaging and biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

170 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ralph T H LeijenaarDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Georgi NalbantovDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Sara CarvalhoDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Wouter J C van ElmptDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Esther G C TroostDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hugo J W L Aerts1] Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands [2] Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Robert J GilliesDepartment of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Philippe LambinDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

Radiomics of NSCLCU01CA143062 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI GILLIES, ROBERT J., SCHABATH, MATTHEW B. · 2010 to 2020
$5.7M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA143062NCI NIH HHS U01 CA 143062-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

FDG-PET-derived textural features describing intra-tumor heterogeneity are increasingly investigated as imaging biomarkers. As part of the process of quantifying heterogeneity, image intensities (SUVs) are typically resampled into a reduced number of discrete bins. We focused on the implications of the manner in which this discretization is implemented. Two methods were evaluated: (1) R(D), dividing the SUV range into D equally spaced bins, where the intensity resolution (i.e. bin size) varies per image; and (2) R(B), maintaining a constant intensity resolution B. Clinical feasibility was assessed on 35 lung cancer patients, imaged before and in the second week of radiotherapy. Forty-four textural features were determined for different D and B for both imaging time points. Feature values depended on the intensity resolution and out of both assessed methods, R(B) was shown to allow for a meaningful inter- and intra-patient comparison of feature values. Overall, patients ranked differently according to feature values–which was used as a surrogate for textural feature interpretation–between both discretization methods. Our study shows that the manner of SUV discretization has a crucial effect on the resulting textural features and the interpretation thereof, emphasizing the importance of standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyBiomarkers, TumorFeasibility StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLung NeoplasmsRadiopharmaceuticalsTomography, X-Ray ComputedBiomarkers, TumorFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID26242464
PMCPMC4525145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.