Radiomics, the high-throughput mining of quantitative image features from standard-of-care medical imaging that enables data to be extracted and applied within clinical-decision support systems to improve diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive accuracy, is gaining importance in cancer research. Radiomic analysis exploits sophisticated image analysis tools and the rapid development and validation of medical imaging data that uses image-based signatures for precision diagnosis and treatment, providing a powerful tool in modern medicine. Herein, we describe the process of radiomics, its pitfalls, challenges, opportunities, and its capacity to improve clinical decision making, emphasizing the utility for patients with cancer. Currently, the field of radiomics lacks standardized evaluation of both the scientific integrity and the clinical relevance of the numerous published radiomics investigations resulting from the rapid growth of this area. Rigorous evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines need to be established in order for radiomics to mature as a discipline. Herein, we provide guidance for investigations to meet this urgent need in the field of radiomics.

Quantitative analysis of tumour characteristics based on medical imaging is an emerging field of research. In recent years, quantitative imaging features derived from CT, positron emission tomography and MR scans were shown to be of added value in the prediction of outcome parameters in oncology, in what is called the radiomics field. However, results might be difficult to compare owing to a lack of standardized methodologies to conduct quantitative image analyses. In this review, we aim to present an overview of the current challenges, technical routines and protocols that are involved in quantitative imaging studies. The first issue that should be overcome is the dependency of several features on the scan acquisition and image reconstruction parameters. Adopting consistent methods in the subsequent target segmentation step is evenly crucial. To further establish robust quantitative image analyses, standardization or at least calibration of imaging features based on different feature extraction settings is required, especially for texture- and filter-based features. Several open-source and commercial software packages to perform feature extraction are currently available, all with slightly different functionalities, which makes benchmarking quite challenging. The number of imaging features calculated is typically larger than the number of patients studied, which emphasizes the importance of proper feature selection and prediction model-building routines to prevent overfitting. Even though many of these challenges still need to be addressed before quantitative imaging can be brought into daily clinical practice, radiomics is expected to be a critical component for the integration of image-derived information to personalize treatment in the future.

Influence of gray level discretization on radiomic feature stability for different CT scanners, tube currents and slice thicknesses: a comprehensive phantom study, Acta Oncologica, 56:11, 1544-1553, DOI: 10.1080 Background: Radiomic analyses of CT images provide prognostic information that can potentially be used for personalized treatment. However, heterogeneity of acquisition-and reconstruction protocols influences robustness of radiomic analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different CT-scanners, slice thicknesses, exposures and gray-level discretization on radiomic feature values and their stability. Material and methods: A texture phantom with ten different inserts was scanned on nine different CT-scanners with varying tube currents. Scans were reconstructed with 1.5 mm or 3 mm slice thickness. Image pre-processing comprised gray-level discretization in ten different bin widths ranging from 5 to 50 HU and different resampling methods (i.e., linear, cubic and nearest neighbor interpolation to 1 Â 1 Â 3 mm 3 voxels) were investigated. Subsequently, 114 textural radiomic features were extracted from a 2.1 cm 3 sphere in the center of each insert. The influence of slice thickness, exposure and bin width on feature values was investigated. Feature stability was assessed by calculating the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) in a test-retest setting and for different combinations of scanners, tube currents and slice thicknesses. Results: Bin width influenced feature values, but this only had a marginal effect on the total number of stable features (CCC > 0.85) when comparing different scanners, slice thicknesses or exposures. Most radiomic features were affected by slice thickness, but this effect could be reduced by resampling the CT-images before feature extraction. Statistics feature 'energy' was the most dependent on slice thickness. No clear correlation between feature values and exposures was observed. Conclusions: CT-scanner, slice thickness and bin width affected radiomic feature values, whereas no effect of exposure was observed. Optimization of gray-level discretization to potentially improve prognostic value can be performed without compromising feature stability. Resampling images prior to feature extraction decreases the variability of radiomic features.

A paradigm shift from current population based medicine to personalized and participative medicine is underway. This transition is being supported by the development of clinical decision support systems based on prediction models of treatment outcome. In radiation oncology, these models 'learn' using advanced and innovative information technologies (ideally in a distributed fashion - please watch the animation: http://youtu.be/ZDJFOxpwqEA) from all available/appropriate medical data (clinical, treatment, imaging, biological/genetic, etc.) to achieve the highest possible accuracy with respect to prediction of tumor response and normal tissue toxicity. In this position paper, we deliver an overview of the factors that are associated with outcome in radiation oncology and discuss the methodology behind the development of accurate prediction models, which is a multi-faceted process. Subsequent to initial development/validation and clinical introduction, decision support systems should be constantly re-evaluated (through quality assurance procedures) in different patient datasets in order to refine and re-optimize the models, ensuring the continuous utility of the models. In the reasonably near future, decision support systems will be fully integrated within the clinic, with data and knowledge being shared in a standardized, dynamic, and potentially global manner enabling truly personalized and participative medicine.

4DCT-scans can be used as alternative to eliminate unstable radiomics features as first step in a feature selection procedure. Feature robustness is tumour-site specific and independent of prognostic value.

A RF model predicting 3-year overall survival based on pretreatment CT radiomic features was developed and validated in two independent datasets of esophageal cancer patients. The radiomics model had better prognostic power compared to the model using standard clinical variables.

Precision medicine is the future of health care: please watch the animation at https://vimeo.com/241154708. As a technology-intensive and -dependent medical discipline, oncology will be at the vanguard of this impending change. However, to bring about precision medicine, a fundamental conundrum must be solved: Human cognitive capacity, typically constrained to five variables for decision making in the context of the increasing number of available biomarkers and therapeutic options, is a limiting factor to the realization of precision medicine. Given this level of complexity and the restriction of human decision making, current methods are untenable. A solution to this challenge is multifactorial decision support systems (DSSs), continuously learning artificial intelligence platforms that integrate all available data—clinical, imaging, biologic, genetic, cost—to produce validated predictive models. DSSs compare the personalized probable outcomes—toxicity, tumor control, quality of life, cost effectiveness—of various care pathway decisions to ensure optimal efficacy and economy. DSSs can be integrated into the workflows both strategically (at the multidisciplinary tumor board level to support treatment choice, eg, surgery or radiotherapy) and tactically (at the specialist level to support treatment technique, eg, prostate spacer or not). In some countries, the reimbursement of certain treatments, such as proton therapy, is already conditional on the basis that a DSS is used. DSSs have many stakeholders—clinicians, medical directors, medical insurers, patient advocacy groups—and are a natural consequence of big data in health care. Here, we provide an overview of DSSs, their challenges, opportunities, and capacity to improve clinical decision making, with an emphasis on the utility in oncology.

Truly personalised cancer treatment is the goal in modern radiotherapy. However, personalised cancer treatment is also an immense challenge. The vast variety of both cancer patients and treatment options makes it extremely difficult to determine which decisions are optimal for the individual patient. Nevertheless, rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design are two approaches (among others) that can help meet this challenge.