Standardization in quantitative imaging: A multicenter comparison of radiomic features from different software packages on digital reference objects and patient data sets

Michael McNitt-Gray, S. Napel, A. Jaggi, S. A. Mattonen, L. Hadjiiski, M. Muzi, D. Goldgof, Y. Balagurunathan, L. A. Pierce, P. E. Kinahan, E. F. Jones, A. Nguyen, A. Virkud, H. P. Chan, N. Emaminejad, M. Wahi-Anwar, M. Daly, M. Abdalah, H. Yang, L. LuW. Lv, A. Rahmim, A. Gastounioti, S. Pati, S. Bakas, D. Kontos, B. Zhao, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

33 Scopus citations

Abstract

Radiomic features are being increasingly studied for clinical applications. We aimed to assess the agreement among radiomic features when computed by several groups by using different software packages under very tightly controlled conditions, which included standardized feature definitions and common image data sets. Ten sites (9 from the NCI’s Quantitative Imaging Network] positron emission tomography–computed tomography working group plus one site from outside that group) participated in this project. Nine common quantitative imaging features were selected for comparison including features that describe morphology, intensity, shape, and texture. The common image data sets were: three 3D digital reference objects (DROs) and 10 patient image scans from the Lung Image Database Consortium data set using a specific lesion in each scan. Each object (DRO or lesion) was accompanied by an already-defined volume of interest, from which the features were calculated. Feature values for each object (DRO or lesion) were reported. The coefficient of variation (CV), expressed as a percentage, was calculated across software packages for each feature on each object. Thirteen sets of results were obtained for the DROs and patient data sets. Five of the 9 features showed excellent agreement with CV < 1%; 1 feature had moderate agreement (CV < 10%), and 3 features had larger variations (CV ≥ 10%) even after attempts at harmonization of feature calculations. This work highlights the value of feature definition standardization as well as the need to further clarify definitions for some features.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)118-128
Number of pages11
JournalTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2020

Keywords

  • Feature Definitions
  • Multi-center
  • Quantitative Imaging
  • Radiomics
  • Standardization

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Standardization in quantitative imaging: A multicenter comparison of radiomic features from different software packages on digital reference objects and patient data sets'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this