Repeatability of Radiomic Features in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT Studies: Impact of Reconstruction and Delineation

Velden, Floris H. P. van; Krämer, G.; Frings, Virginie; Nissen, Ida A.; Mulder, Emma R.; Langen, Adrianus J. de; Hoekstra, Otto S.; Smit, Egbert F.; Boellaard, Ronald

doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2

Cited by 226 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the choice and definitions of the textural analysis metrics vary widely and the evaluation techniques differ substantially, thus, rendering a comparison between studies almost impossible [260,297]. The need for standardization efforts in the field of textural analyses has been highlighted previously [260,298,299], and efforts are currently under way to address this challenge [260,[300][301][302].…”

Section: Multi-centre Standardizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State-of-the-art patient management frequently requires the use of non-invasive imaging methods to assess the anatomy, function or molecular-biological conditions of patients or study subjects. Such imaging methods can be singular, providing either anatomical or molecular information, or they can be combined, thus, providing "anato-metabolic" information. Hybrid imaging denotes image acquisitions on systems that physically combine complementary imaging modalities for an improved diagnostic accuracy and confidence as well as for increased patient comfort. The physical combination of formerly independent imaging modalities was driven by leading innovators in the field of clinical research and benefited from technological advances that permitted the operation of PET and MR in close physical proximity, for example. This review covers milestones of the development of various hybrid imaging systems for use in clinical practice and small-animal research. Special attention is given to technological advances that helped the adoption of hybrid imaging, as well as to introducing methodological concepts that benefit from the availability of complementary anatomical and biological information, such as new types of image reconstruction and data correction schemes. The ultimate goal of hybrid imaging is to provide useful, complementary and quantitative information during patient work-up. Hybrid imaging also opens the door to multi-parametric assessment of diseases, which will help us better understand the causes of various diseases that currently contribute to a large fraction of healthcare costs.

show abstract

Section: Multi-centre Standardizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further work is also needed to more extensively explore the impact of PSF reconstructions, voxel size and number of iterations/subsets on the variability of quantitative metrics of clinical datasets. Some reports have already been published showing that the repeatability and ICC of SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean are at an acceptable level [58]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation

Kaalep

Séra

Rijnsdorp

et al. 2018

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Self Cite

113

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of harmonising performance for PET/CT systems equipped with time-of-flight (ToF) and resolution modelling/point spread function (PSF) technologies. A second aim was producing a working prototype of new harmonising criteria with higher contrast recoveries than current EARL standards using various SUV metrics.MethodsFour PET/CT systems with both ToF and PSF capabilities from three major vendors were used to acquire and reconstruct images of the NEMA NU2–2007 body phantom filled conforming EANM EARL guidelines. A total of 15 reconstruction parameter sets of varying pixel size, post filtering and reconstruction type, with three different acquisition durations were used to compare the quantitative performance of the systems. A target range for recovery curves was established such that it would accommodate the highest matching recoveries from all investigated systems. These updated criteria were validated on 18 additional scanners from 16 sites in order to demonstrate the scanners’ ability to meet the new target range.ResultsEach of the four systems was found to be capable of producing harmonising reconstructions with similar recovery curves. The five reconstruction parameter sets producing harmonising results significantly increased SUVmean (25%) and SUVmax (26%) contrast recoveries compared with current EARL specifications. Additional prospective validation performed on 18 scanners from 16 EARL accredited sites demonstrated the feasibility of updated harmonising specifications. SUVpeak was found to significantly reduce the variability in quantitative results while producing lower recoveries in smaller (≤17 mm diameter) sphere sizes.ConclusionsHarmonising PET/CT systems with ToF and PSF technologies from different vendors was found to be feasible. The harmonisation of such systems would require an update to the current multicentre accreditation program EARL in order to accommodate higher recoveries. SUVpeak should be further investigated as a noise resistant alternative quantitative metric to SUVmax.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Radiomic features can reflect the heterogeneity of FDG uptake and have the potential to enhance prediction of response to chemoradiotherapy [43], patient outcome [13], and histopathology [44]. At the same time, radiomic features are influenced by different imaging processes, and there have been some efforts, as also mentioned in the introduction, to investigate sensitivity of radiomic features to different parameters/modes, data acquisition, reconstruction, and analysis [19,[23][24][25][26]45]. So far, to our knowledge, there have been no studies of robustness of radiomic features in PET imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma or, in fact, any radiomic analysis for [ 11 C]choline PET.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%