Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34117929›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2021

Experimental phantom evaluation to identify robust positron emission tomography (PET) radiomic features.

Montserrat Carles, Tobias Fechter, Luis Martí-Bonmatí, Dimos Baltas, Michael Mix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cancers · 2021
    Article
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

5 authors.

Montserrat CarlesDivision of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. montserrat.carles@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2401-8240
Tobias FechterDivision of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Luis Martí-BonmatíBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) and Imaging La Fe node at Distributed Network for Biomedical Imaging (ReDIB) Unique Scientific and Technical Infrastructures (ICTS), La Fe Health Research Institute, Av. Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026, Valencia, Spain.
Dimos BaltasDivision of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Michael MixGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiomics analysis usually involves, especially in multicenter and large hospital studies, different imaging protocols for acquisition, reconstruction, and processing of data. Differences in protocols can lead to differences in the quantification of the biomarker distribution, leading to radiomic feature variability. The aim of our study was to identify those radiomic features robust to the different degrading factors in positron emission tomography (PET) studies. We proposed the use of the standardized measurements of the European Association Research Ltd. (EARL) accreditation to retrospectively identify the radiomic features having low variability to the different systems and reconstruction protocols. In addition, we presented a reproducible procedure to identify PET radiomic features robust to PET/CT imaging metal artifacts. In 27 heterogeneous homemade phantoms for which ground truth was accurately defined by CT segmentation, we evaluated the segmentation accuracy and radiomic feature reliability given by the contrast-oriented algorithm (COA) and the 40% threshold PET segmentation. In the comparison of two data sets, robustness was defined by Wilcoxon rank tests, bias was quantified by Bland-Altman (BA) plot analysis, and strong correlations were identified by Spearman correlation test (r > 0.8 and p satisfied multiple test Bonferroni correction).

resultsForty-eight radiomic features were robust to system, 22 to resolution, 102 to metal artifacts, and 42 to different PET segmentation tools. Overall, only 4 radiomic features were simultaneously robust to all degrading factors. Although both segmentation approaches significantly underestimated the volume with respect to the ground truth, with relative deviations of -62 ± 36% for COA and -50 ± 44% for 40%, radiomic features derived from the ground truth were strongly correlated and/or robust to 98 radiomic features derived from COA and to 102 from 40%.

conclusionIn multicenter studies, we recommend the analysis of EARL accreditation measurements in order to retrospectively identify the robust PET radiomic features. Furthermore, 4 radiomic features (area under the curve of the cumulative SUV volume histogram, skewness, kurtosis, and gray-level variance derived from GLRLM after application of an equal probability quantization algorithm on the voxels within lesion) were robust to all degrading factors. In addition, the feasibility of 40% and COA segmentations for their use in radiomics analysis has been demonstrated.

Indexed as

HeterogeneityPETPhantomsRadiomic featuresRobustness

Identifiers

PMID34117929
PMCPMC8197692

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.