The role of the quality control system for diagnostics of oncological diseases in radiomics

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Modern medical imaging methods allow for both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of tumors and issues surrounding them. Advances in computer science and big data processing are transforming any radiological study into analytic datasets, especially with the use of machine learning in medical image analysis. Among these datasets, statistically significant correlations with clinical events can then be searched for to subsequently assess their predictive value and ability to predict a particular clinical outcome. This concept, known as “radiomics,” was first described in 2012. It is particularly important in oncology because each type of tumor can be subdivided into many different molecular genetic subtypes, and simple visual characteristics are no longer sufficient. Moreover, as an absolutely noninvasive method, radiomics can provide a radiologist with additional information that would otherwise be unavailable without a histological examination of biopsy material. However, as with any methodology based on the use of big data, the question of the quality of the initial data becomes critical, because this can directly affect the outcome of the analysis and provide incorrect diagnostic information.

In this literature review, we examine potential approaches to ensuring the quality of research at all stages, from technical control of the state of diagnostic equipment to the extraction of imaging markers in oncology and the calculation of their correlation with clinical data.

About the authors

Anna N. Khoruzhaya

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Author for correspondence.
Email: a.khoruzhaya@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4857-5404
SPIN-code: 7948-6427

Junior Researcher, Department of Innovative Technologies

Russian Federation, 28-1 Srednyaya Kalitnikovskaya str., 109029, Moscow

Ekaterina S. Ahkmad

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: e.ahkmad@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8235-9361
SPIN-code: 5891-4384
Russian Federation, 28-1 Srednyaya Kalitnikovskaya str., 109029, Moscow

Dmitriy S. Semenov

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: d.semenov@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4293-2514
SPIN-code: 2278-7290
Russian Federation, 28-1 Srednyaya Kalitnikovskaya str., 109029, Moscow

References

  1. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, et al. Radiomics: The process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1234–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010
  2. Papanikolaou N, Matos C, Koh DM. How to develop a meaningful radiomic signature for clinical use in oncologic patients. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-00311-4
  3. Aerts HJ, Grossmann P, Tan Y, et al. Defining a radiomic response phenotype: A pilot study using targeted therapy in NSCLC. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33860. doi: 10.1038/srep33860
  4. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(3):345–350. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015
  5. Lopez CJ, Nagornaya N, Parra NA, et al. Association of radiomics and metabolic tumor volumes in radiation treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(3):586–595. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.011
  6. De Souza NM, Achten E, Alberich-Bayarri A, et al. Validated imaging biomarkers as decision-making tools in clinical trials and routine practice: current status and recommendations from the EIBALL* subcommittee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0764-0
  7. Jones EF, Buatti JM, Shu HK, et al. Clinical trial design and development work group within the quantitative imaging network. Tomography. 2020;6(2):60–64. doi: 10.18383/j.tom.2019.00022
  8. European Society of Radiology (ESR). ESR statement on the validation of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-00872-9
  9. Grimm LJ, Zhang J, Mazurowski MA. Computational approach to radiogenomics of breast cancer: Luminal A and luminal B molecular subtypes are associated with imaging features on routine breast MRI extracted using computer vision algorithms. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(4):902–907. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24879
  10. Nie K, Shi L, Chen Q, et al. Rectal cancer: Assessment of neoadjuvant chemoradiation outcome based on radiomics of multi-parametric MRI. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(21):5256–5264. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2997
  11. Kim H, Park CM, Lee M, et al. Impact of reconstruction algorithms on ct radiomic features of pulmonary tumors: analysis of intra- and inter-reader variability and inter-reconstruction algorithm variability. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164924
  12. Ohri N, Duan F, Snyder BS, et al. Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET textural features in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Secondary analysis of ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(6):842–848. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.166934
  13. Zhang B, Tian J, Dong D, et al. Radiomics features of multiparametric MRI as novel prognostic factors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):4259–4269. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2910
  14. Nakatsugawa M, Cheng Z, Goatman KA, et al. Radiomic analysis of salivary glands and its role for predicting xerostomia in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96(2 suppl):S217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.539
  15. Shafiee MJ, Chung AG, Khalvati F, et al. Discovery radiomics via evolutionary deep radiomic sequencer discovery for pathologically proven lung cancer detection. J Med Imaging. 2016;4(4):041305. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.4.041305
  16. Echegaray S, Nair V, Kadoch M, et al. A rapid segmentation-insensitive «Digital Biopsy» method for radiomic feature extraction: method and pilot study using ct images of non-small cell lung cancer. Tomography. 2016;2(4):283–294. doi: 10.18383/j.tom.2016.00163
  17. Li H, Galperin-Aizenberg M, Pryma D, et al. Unsupervised machine learning of radiomic features for predicting treatment response and overall survival of early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;129(2):218–226. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.06.025
  18. Tajbakhsh N, Shin JY, Gurudu SR, et al. Convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis: full training or fine tuning? IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2016;35(5):1299–1312. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2535302
  19. Elguindi S, Zelefsky MJ, Jiang J, et al. Deep learning-based auto-segmentation of targets and organs-at-risk for magnetic resonance imaging only planning of prostate radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;12:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.11.006
  20. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278(2):563–577. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169
  21. Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, et al. Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: Interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology. 2011;259(3):875–884. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100800
  22. Alobaidli S, McQuaid S, South C, et al. The role of texture analysis in imaging as an outcome predictor and potential tool in radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1042):20140369. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20140369
  23. Li H, Giger ML, Lan L, et al. Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls. J Med Imaging. 2014;1(3):031009. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.031009
  24. Goh V, Ganeshan B, Nathan P, et al. Assessment of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell cancer: CT texture as a predictive biomarker. Radiology. 2011;261(1):165–171. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110264
  25. Yip C, Davnall F, Kozarski R, et al. Assessment of changes in tumor heterogeneity following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2015;28(2):172–179. doi: 10.1111/dote.12170
  26. Park JE, Kim HS. Radiomics as a quantitative imaging biomarker: practical considerations and the current standpoint in neuro-oncologic studies. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;52(2):99–108. doi: 10.1007/s13139-017-0512-7
  27. Sergunova KA, Akhmad ES, Semenov DS, et al. Medical physicist’s participation in quality assurance and safety in magnetic resonance imaging. Medical physics. 2020;(3):78–85. (In Russ).
  28. Clements JB, Baird CT, de Boer SF, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10.a.: Scope of practice for clinical medical physics. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(6):11–25. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12469
  29. Shukla-Dave A, Obuchowski NA, Chenevert TL, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE-MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(7):e101–e121. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26518
  30. Russek SE, Boss M, Jackson EF, et al. Characterization of NIST/ISMRM MRI System Phantom. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. 2012;20:2456.
  31. Kuo MD, Jamshidi N. Behind the numbers: Decoding molecular phenotypes with radiogenomics –guiding principles and technical considerations. Radiology. 2014;270(2):320–325. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13132195
  32. Narang S, Lehrer M, Yang D, et al. Radiomics in glioblastoma: current status, challenges and potential opportunities. Transl Cancer Res. 2016;5(4):383–397. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2016.06.31
  33. O’Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(3):169–186. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162
  34. Buizza G, Toma-Dasu I, Lazzeroni M, et al. Early tumor response prediction for lung cancer patients using novel longitudinal pattern features from sequential PET/CT image scans. Phys Med. 2018;54:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.09.003
  35. Raunig DL, McShane LM, Pennello G, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24(1):27–67. doi: 10.1177/0962280214537344
  36. Obuchowski NA, Reeves AP, Huang EP, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24(1):68–106. doi: 10.1177/0962280214537390
  37. Elguindi S, Zelefsky MJ, Jiang J, et al. Deep learning-based auto-segmentation of targets and organs-at-risk for magnetic resonance imaging only planning of prostate radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;12:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.11.006
  38. Morozov SP, Vladzimirsky AV, Klyashtorny VG, et al. Clinical trials of software based on intelligent technologies (radiation diagnostics). Methodological recommendations. Moscow; 2019. 33 p. (In Russ).
  39. Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2015;277(3):813–825. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142202
  40. Shur J, Blackledge M, D’Arcy J, et al. MRI texture feature repeatability and image acquisition factor robustness, a phantom study and in silico study. Eur Radiol Exp. 2021;5(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s41747-020-00199-6
  41. Bane O, Hectors SJ, Wagner M, et al. Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study. Magn Reson Med. 2018;79(5):2564–2575. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26903
  42. He Y, Liu Y, Dyer BA, et al. 3D-printed breast phantom for multi-purpose and multi-modality imaging. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019;9(1):63–74. doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.01.05
  43. Scheuermann JS, Reddin JS, Opanowski A, et al. Qualification of national cancer institute-designated cancer centers for quantitative PET/CT imaging in clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(7):1065–1071. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186759
  44. Obuchowski NA, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, et al. Statistical issues in the comparison of quantitative imaging biomarker algorithms using pulmonary nodule volume as an example. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24(1):107–140. doi: 10.1177/0962280214537392
  45. Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, et al. The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24(1):9–26. doi: 10.1177/0962280214537333
  46. Napel S, Mu W, Jardim-Perassi BV, et al. Quantitative imaging of cancer in the postgenomic era: Radio(geno)mics, deep learning, and habitats. Cancer. 2018;124(24):4633–4649. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31630
  47. Rozhkova NI, Bozhenko VK, Burdina II, et al. Radiogenomics of breast cancer as new vector of interdisciplinary integration of radiation and molecular biological technologies (literature review). Medical alphabet. 2020;(20):21–29. (In Russ). doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2020-20-21-29
  48. Antropova N, Huynh BQ, Giger ML. A deep feature fusion methodology for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrated on three imaging modality datasets. Med Phys. 2017;44(10):5162–5171. doi: 10.1002/mp.12453
  49. Antunovic L, Gallivanone F, Sollini M, et al. [18F]FDG PET/CT features for the molecular characterization of primary breast tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(12):1945–1954. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3770-9
  50. Ha S, Park S, Bang JI, et al. Metabolic radiomics for pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT to characterize locally advanced breast cancer: histopathologic characteristics, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and prognosis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1556. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01524-7
  51. Guo W, Li H, Zhu Y, et al. Prediction of clinical phenotypes in invasive breast carcinomas from the integration of radiomics and genomics data. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2015;2(4):041007. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041007
  52. Saha A, Harowicz MR, Grimm LJ, et al. A machine learning approach to radiogenomics of breast cancer: a study of 922 subjects and 529 DCE-MRI features. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(4):508–516. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0185-8
  53. Dong Y, Feng Q, Yang W, et al. Preoperative prediction of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer based on radiomics of T2-weighted fat-suppression and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):582–591. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5005-7
  54. Chan HM, van der Velden BH, Loo CE, Gilhuijs KG. Eigentumors for prediction of treatment failure in patients with early-stage breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(16):6467–6485. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa7dc5
  55. Braman NM, Etesami M, Prasanna P, et al. Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0846-1
  56. Chamming’s F, Ueno Y, Ferré R, et al. Features from computerized texture analysis of breast cancers at pretreatment MR imaging are associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology. 2018;286(2):412–420. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170143
  57. Partridge SC, Zhang Z, Newitt DC, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI findings predict pathologic response in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: the ACRIN 6698 multicenter trial. Radiology. 2018;289(3):618–627. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180273
  58. Park H, Lim Y, Ko ES, et al. Radiomics signature on magnetic resonance imaging: association with disease-free survival in patients with invasive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(19):4705–4714. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3783
  59. Nasrullah N, Sang J, Alam MS, et al. Automated lung nodule detection and classification using deep learning combined with multiple strategies. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(17):3722. doi: 10.3390/s19173722
  60. Carter BW, Godoy MC, Erasmus JJ. Predicting malignant nodules from screening CTs. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(12):2045–2047. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.09.117
  61. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5006
  62. Zhou H, Dong D, Chen B, et al. Diagnosis of distant metastasis of lung cancer: based on clinical and radiomic features. Transl Oncol. 2018;11(1):31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.10.010
  63. Liu Y, Kim J, Balagurunathan Y, et al. Radiomic features are associated with EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinomas. Clin Lung Cancer. 2016;17(5):441–448.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2016.02.001
  64. Fave X, Zhang L, Yang J, et al. Delta-radiomics features for the prediction of patient outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):588. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00665-z
  65. Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Narayan V, et al. Radiomic phenotype features predict pathological response in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2016;119(3):480–486. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.004
  66. Kickingereder P, Neuberger U, Bonekamp D, et al. Radiomic subtyping improves disease stratification beyond key molecular, clinical, and standard imaging characteristics in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(6):848–857. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nox188
  67. Pérez-Beteta J, Molina-García D, Ortiz-Alhambra JA, et al. Tumor surface regularity at MR imaging predicts survival and response to surgery in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology. 2018;288(1):218–225. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171051
  68. Zhou Z, Chen L, Sher D, et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancer by combining many-objective radiomics and 3-dimensioal convolutional neural network through evidential reasoning. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018;2018:1–4. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513070
  69. Wang G, He L, Yuan C, et al. Pretreatment MR imaging radiomics signatures for response prediction to induction chemotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2018;98:100–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.007
  70. Chen X, Oshima K, Schott D, et al. Assessment of treatment response during chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer based on quantitative radiomic analysis of daily CTs: An exploratory study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178961
  71. Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L, et al. Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18):2157–2164. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.9128
  72. Lin YC, Lin G, Hong JH, et al. Diffusion radiomics analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity in a murine prostate cancer model following radiotherapy: Pixelwise correlation with histology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(2):483–489. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25583
  73. Chaddad A, Kucharczyk MJ, Niazi T. Multimodal radiomic features for the predicting gleason score of prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(8):249. doi: 10.3390/cancers10080249
  74. Ognerubov NA, Shatov IA, Shatov AV. Radiogenomics and radiomics in the diagnostics of malignant tumours: a literary review. Tambov University Reports. Series: Natural and Technical Sciences. 2017;22(6):1453–1460. (In Russ). doi: 10.20310/1810-0198-2017-22-6-1453-1460.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of radiomics analysis of images of radiation diagnostics with an indication of the role of the quality control system.

Download (179KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Justification for the implementation of a quality control system in radiomics.

Download (340KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2021 Khoruzhaya A.N., Ahkmad E.S., Semenov D.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies