nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

21.06.2016 | Original Article

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity quantification through textural features in the era of harmonisation programs: a focus on lung cancer

verfasst von: Charline Lasnon, Mohamed Majdoub, Brice Lavigne, Pascal Do, Jeannick Madelaine, Dimitris Visvikis, Mathieu Hatt, Nicolas Aide

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 13/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Quantification of tumour heterogeneity in PET images has recently gained interest, but has been shown to be dependent on image reconstruction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the EANM/EARL accreditation program on selected ¹⁸F-FDG heterogeneity metrics.

Methods

To carry out our study, we prospectively analysed 71 tumours in 60 biopsy-proven lung cancer patient acquisitions reconstructed with unfiltered point spread function (PSF) positron emission tomography (PET) images (optimised for diagnostic purposes), PSF-reconstructed images with a 7-mm Gaussian filter (PSF₇) chosen to meet European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) 1.0 harmonising standards, and EANM Research Ltd. (EARL)-compliant ordered subset expectation maximisation (OSEM) images. Delineation was performed with fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian (FLAB) algorithm on PSF images and reported on PSF₇ and OSEM ones, and with a 50 % standardised uptake values (SUV)_max threshold (SUV_max50%) applied independently to each image. Robust and repeatable heterogeneity metrics including 1st-order [area under the curve of the cumulative histogram (CH_AUC)], 2nd-order (entropy, correlation, and dissimilarity), and 3rd-order [high-intensity larger area emphasis (HILAE) and zone percentage (ZP)] textural features (TF) were statistically compared.

Results

Volumes obtained with SUV_max50% were significantly smaller than FLAB-derived ones, and were significantly smaller in PSF images compared to OSEM and PSF₇ images. PSF-reconstructed images showed significantly higher SUVmax and SUVmean values, as well as heterogeneity for CH_AUC, dissimilarity, correlation, and HILAE, and a wider range of heterogeneity values than OSEM images for most of the metrics considered, especially when analysing larger tumours. Histological subtypes had no impact on TF distribution. No significant difference was observed between any of the considered metrics (SUV or heterogeneity features) that we extracted from OSEM and PSF₇ reconstructions. Furthermore, the distributions of TF for OSEM and PSF₇ reconstructions according to tumour volumes were similar for all ranges of volumes.

Conclusion

PSF reconstruction with Gaussian filtering chosen to meet harmonising standards resulted in similar SUV values and heterogeneity information as compared to OSEM images, which validates its use within the harmonisation strategy context. However, unfiltered PSF-reconstructed images also showed higher heterogeneity according to some metrics, as well as a wider range of heterogeneity values than OSEM images for most of the metrics considered, especially when analysing larger tumours. This suggests that, whenever available, unfiltered PSF images should also be exploited to obtain the most discriminative quantitative heterogeneity features.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.CrossRefPubMed

Boellaard R. Methodological aspects of multicenter studies with quantitative PET. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;727:335–49. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18.CrossRefPubMed

Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1–3. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.094763.CrossRefPubMed

American College of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET accreditation program http://www.acraccreditation.org/Modalities/Nuclear-Medicine-and-PET.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine. EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation. 2015. http://earl.eanm.org/cms/website.php?id=/en/projects/fdg_pet_ct_accreditation.htm.

The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical trials network (SNMMI-CTN). Scanner validation program. http://www.snmmi.org/Research/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5482&navItemNumber=6834.

Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1507–15. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0.CrossRefPubMed

Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907–21.CrossRefPubMed

Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159301.PubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Bellevre D, Blanc Fournier C, Switsers O, Dugue AE, Levy C, Allouache D, et al. Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with ¹⁸F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1103–12. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2689-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:985–96. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Mertens J, Dobbeleir A, Ham H, D’Asseler Y, Goethals I, Van de Wiele C. Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM): a partial volume independent marker of total lesion glycolysis in liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1441–8. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2166-0.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C. The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1670–2. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2239-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recogn. 2009;42:1162–71. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2008.08.011.CrossRef

17.

Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012–6. doi:10.3109/0284186X.2010.498437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Yan J, Chu-Shern JL, Loi HY, Khor LK, Sinha AK, Quek ST, et al. Impact of image reconstruction settings on texture features in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1667–73. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.156927.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallieres M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Groheux D, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:38–44. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.144055.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Calais J, Dubray B, Nkhali L, Thureau S, Lemarignier C, Modzelewski R, et al. High FDG uptake areas on pre-radiotherapy PET/CT identify preferential sites of local relapse after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:858–67. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3004-y.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sauter AW, Schwenzer N, Divine MR, Pichler BJ, Pfannenberg C. Image-derived biomarkers and multimodal imaging strategies for lung cancer management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:634–43. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2974-5.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Takeuchi S, Khiewvan B, Fox PS, Swisher SG, Rohren EM, Bassett Jr RL, et al. Impact of initial PET/CT staging in terms of clinical stage, management plan, and prognosis in 592 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:906–14. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2672-8.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Vera P, Mezzani-Saillard S, Edet-Sanson A, Menard JF, Modzelewski R, Thureau S, et al. FDG PET during radiochemotherapy is predictive of outcome at 1 year in non-small-cell lung cancer patients: a prospective multicentre study (RTEP2). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1057–65. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2687-9.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Fried DV, Mawlawi O, Zhang L, Fave X, Zhou S, Ibbott G, et al. Stage III non-small cell lung cancer: prognostic value of FDG PET quantitative imaging features combined with clinical prognostic factors. Radiology. 2016;278:214–22. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142920.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lovinfosse P, Janvary ZL, Coucke P, Jodogne S, Bernard C, Hatt M, et al. FDG PET/CT texture analysis for predicting the outcome of lung cancer treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3314-8.PubMed

26.

Aide N, Desmonts C, Beauregard JM, Beyer T, Kinross K, Roselt P, et al. High throughput static and dynamic small animal imaging using clinical PET/CT: potential preclinical applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:991–1001. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1352-1.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Turzo A, Roux C, Visvikis D. A fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian segmentation approach for volume determination in PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:881–93. doi:10.1109/TMI.2008.2012036.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:663–72. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1688-6.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368–76. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.078501.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:301–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.018.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Arens AI, Troost EG, Hoeben BA, Grootjans W, Lee JA, Gregoire V, et al. Semiautomatic methods for segmentation of the proliferative tumour volume on sequential FLT PET/CT images in head and neck carcinomas and their relation to clinical outcome. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:915–24. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2651-0.CrossRefPubMed

32.

van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1636–47. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1845-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Robustness of intratumour (1)(8)F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1662–71. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2486-8.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693–700. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.099127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Vallieres M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5471–96. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5471.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Webb AG. Introduction to biomedical imaging. Wiley-IEEE Press; 2003.

37.

van Velden FH, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol Imaging Biol Off Publ Acad Mol Imaging. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2.

38.

Nyflot MJ, Yang F, Byrd D, Bowen SR, Sandison GA, Kinahan PE. Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2015;2:041002. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041002.CrossRef

39.

Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:145–52. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.148056.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Groheux D, Majdoub M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Martineau A, Merlet P, et al. Do clinical, histological or immunohistochemical primary tumour characteristics translate into different (18)F-FDG PET/CT volumetric and heterogeneity features in stage II/III breast cancer? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1682–91. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3110-x.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Ha S, Choi H, Cheon GJ, Kang KW, Chung JK, Kim EE, et al. Autoclustering of non-small cell lung carcinoma subtypes on (18)F-FDG PET using texture analysis: a preliminary result. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48:278–86. doi:10.1007/s13139-014-0283-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Chung C. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors for epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancers: an update for recent advances in therapeutics. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2015. doi:10.1177/1078155215577810.PubMed

43.

Caicedo C, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Lozano MD, Labiano T, Vigil Diaz C, Lopez-Picazo JM, et al. Role of [(1)(8)F]FDG PET in prediction of KRAS and EGFR mutation status in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2058–65. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2833-4.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Ko KH, Hsu HH, Huang TW, Gao HW, Shen DH, Chang WC, et al. Value of (1)(8)F-FDG uptake on PET/CT and CEA level to predict epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1889–97. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2802-y.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: 18F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity quantification through textural features in the era of harmonisation programs: a focus on lung cancer
verfasst von: Charline Lasnon
Mohamed Majdoub
Brice Lavigne
Pascal Do
Jeannick Madelaine
Dimitris Visvikis
Mathieu Hatt
Nicolas Aide
Publikationsdatum: 21.06.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 13/2016
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3441-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 13/2016

Role of quantitative myocardial positron emission tomography for risk stratification in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a 2016 reappraisal

Erik Beek and Rick R. van Rijn (Eds): Diagnostic Pediatric Ultrasound

Effective and equivalent dose minimization for personnel in PET procedures: how far are we from the goal?

Value and efficiency of sentinel lymph node diagnostics in patients with penile carcinoma with palpable inguinal lymph nodes as a new multimodal, minimally invasive approach

Crossing technological frontiers in radioguided intervention

Immunohistochemical overexpression of hypoxia-induced factor 1α associated with slow reduction in 18fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake for chemoradiotherapy in patients with pharyngeal cancer