Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27064691›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2016

Exploratory Study to Identify Radiomics Classifiers for Lung Cancer Histology.

Weimiao Wu, Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, John Quackenbush, Philippe Lambin, Johan Bussink, Raymond Mak, Hugo J W L Aerts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 202 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
202citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

202 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

142 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

8 authors.

Weimiao WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Chintan ParmarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Research Institute GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Patrick GrossmannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
John QuackenbushDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Philippe LambinResearch Institute GROW, Maastricht University , Maastricht , Netherlands.
Johan BussinkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , Netherlands.
Raymond MakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA.
Hugo J W L AertsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Quantitative Radiomics System Decoding the Tumor PhenotypeU24CA194354 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.5M
Genotype and Imaging Phenotype Biomarkers in Lung CancerU01CA190234 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI AERTS, HUGO, QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2015 to 2019
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA190234NCI NIH HHS U24 CA194354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiomics can quantify tumor phenotypic characteristics non-invasively by applying feature algorithms to medical imaging data. In this study of lung cancer patients, we investigated the association between radiomic features and the tumor histologic subtypes (adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma). Furthermore, in order to predict histologic subtypes, we employed machine-learning methods and independently evaluated their prediction performance.

methodsTwo independent radiomic cohorts with a combined size of 350 patients were included in our analysis. A total of 440 radiomic features were extracted from the segmented tumor volumes of pretreatment CT images. These radiomic features quantify tumor phenotypic characteristics on medical images using tumor shape and size, intensity statistics, and texture. Univariate analysis was performed to assess each feature's association with the histological subtypes. In our multivariate analysis, we investigated 24 feature selection methods and 3 classification methods for histology prediction. Multivariate models were trained on the training cohort and their performance was evaluated on the independent validation cohort using the area under ROC curve (AUC). Histology was determined from surgical specimen.

resultsIn our univariate analysis, we observed that fifty-three radiomic features were significantly associated with tumor histology. In multivariate analysis, feature selection methods ReliefF and its variants showed higher prediction accuracy as compared to other methods. We found that Naive Baye's classifier outperforms other classifiers and achieved the highest AUC (0.72; p-value = 2.3 × 10(-7)) with five features: Stats_min, Wavelet_HLL_rlgl_lowGrayLevelRunEmphasis, Wavelet_HHL_stats_median, Wavelet_HLL_stats_skewness, and Wavelet_HLH_glcm_clusShade.

conclusionHistological subtypes can influence the choice of a treatment/therapy for lung cancer patients. We observed that radiomic features show significant association with the lung tumor histology. Moreover, radiomics-based multivariate classifiers were independently validated for the prediction of histological subtypes. Despite achieving lower than optimal prediction accuracy (AUC 0.72), our analysis highlights the impressive potential of non-invasive and cost-effective radiomics for precision medicine. Further research in this direction could lead us to optimal performance and therefore to clinical applicability, which could enhance the efficiency and efficacy of cancer care.

Indexed as

computational sciencefeature selectionlung cancer histologyquantitative imagingradiomics

Identifiers

PMID27064691
PMCPMC4811956

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.