Display options
Cite
Jensen LJ, Kim D, Elgeti T, et al. Stability of Liver Radiomics across Different 3D ROI Sizes-An MRI In Vivo Study. Tomography. 2021;7(4):866-876doi: 10.3390/tomography7040073.
Jensen, L. J., Kim, D., Elgeti, T., Steffen, I. G., Hamm, B., & Nagel, S. N. (2021). Stability of Liver Radiomics across Different 3D ROI Sizes-An MRI In Vivo Study. Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 7(4), 866-876. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040073
Jensen, Laura J, et al. "Stability of Liver Radiomics across Different 3D ROI Sizes-An MRI In Vivo Study." Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) vol. 7,4 (2021): 866-876. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040073
Jensen LJ, Kim D, Elgeti T, Steffen IG, Hamm B, Nagel SN. Stability of Liver Radiomics across Different 3D ROI Sizes-An MRI In Vivo Study. Tomography. 2021 Dec 03;7(4):866-876. doi: 10.3390/tomography7040073. PMID: 34941645; PMCID: PMC8706942.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Tomography. 2021 Dec 03;7(4):866-876. doi: 10.3390/tomography7040073.

Stability of Liver Radiomics across Different 3D ROI Sizes-An MRI In Vivo Study.

Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)

Laura J Jensen, Damon Kim, Thomas Elgeti, Ingo G Steffen, Bernd Hamm, Sebastian N Nagel

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Corporate Member of Freie Universität and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
  2. Department of Radiology-Pediatric Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.

PMID: 34941645 PMCID: PMC8706942 DOI: 10.3390/tomography7040073

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the stability of radiomic features in the liver of healthy individuals across different three-dimensional regions of interest (3D ROI) sizes in T1-weighted (T1w) and T2-weighted (T2w) images from different MR scanners. We retrospectively included 66 examinations of patients without known diseases or pathological imaging findings acquired on three MRI scanners (3 Tesla I: 25 patients, 3 Tesla II: 19 patients, 1.5 Tesla: 22 patients). 3D ROIs of different diameters (10, 20, 30 mm) were drawn on T1w GRE and T2w TSE images into the liver parenchyma (segment V-VIII). We extracted 93 radiomic features from the different ROIs and tested features for significant differences with the Mann-Whitney-U (MWU)-test. The MWU-test revealed significant differences for most second- and higher-order features, indicating a systematic difference dependent on the ROI size. The features mean, median, root mean squared (RMS), 10th percentile, and 90th percentile were not significantly different. We also assessed feature robustness to ROI size variation with overall concordance correlation coefficients (OCCCs). OCCCs across the different ROI-sizes for mean, median, and RMS were excellent (>0.90) in both sequences on all three scanners. These features, therefore, seem robust to ROI-size variation and suitable for radiomic studies of liver MRI.

Keywords: liver; magnetic resonance imaging; radiomics; reproducibility; robustness; texture analysis

References

  1. Tomography. 2020 Jun;6(2):160-169 - PubMed
  2. EBioMedicine. 2020 Sep;59:102963 - PubMed
  3. Tomography. 2019 Mar;5(1):226-231 - PubMed
  4. J Hepatol. 2018 Apr;68(4):715-723 - PubMed
  5. Invest Radiol. 2015 Nov;50(11):757-65 - PubMed
  6. Liver Int. 2020 Sep;40(9):2050-2063 - PubMed
  7. Invest Radiol. 2019 Apr;54(4):221-228 - PubMed
  8. Med Phys. 2015 Mar;42(3):1341-53 - PubMed
  9. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 May 14;100(19):e25838 - PubMed
  10. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41 - PubMed
  11. Front Oncol. 2021 May 27;11:638185 - PubMed
  12. Transl Oncol. 2014 Feb 01;7(1):72-87 - PubMed
  13. Tomography. 2021 Aug 05;7(3):344-357 - PubMed
  14. Phys Med. 2019 May;61:44-51 - PubMed
  15. Tomography. 2021 Sep 17;7(3):477-487 - PubMed
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep;181(3):809-17 - PubMed
  17. Tomography. 2016 Dec;2(4):361-365 - PubMed
  18. Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338 - PubMed
  19. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr;14(4):83 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):461-472 - PubMed
  21. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Feb;82(2):342-8 - PubMed
  22. Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1050-1062 - PubMed
  23. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Nov 13;: - PubMed
  24. Tomography. 2021 Jun 08;7(2):238-252 - PubMed
  25. Biometrics. 2002 Dec;58(4):1020-7 - PubMed
  26. Phys Med. 2020 Mar;71:24-30 - PubMed
  27. Radiographics. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):895-910 - PubMed
  28. Front Oncol. 2021 Jan 20;10:541663 - PubMed
  29. Tomography. 2020 Jun;6(2):118-128 - PubMed
  30. World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jun 21;19(1):181 - PubMed
  31. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020 Oct;15(10):1727-1736 - PubMed
  32. Front Oncol. 2021 Mar 29;11:633176 - PubMed
  33. Tomography. 2020 Jun;6(2):223-230 - PubMed
  34. Med Phys. 2020 Jul;47(7):3054-3063 - PubMed
  35. Cancer Control. 2021 Jan-Dec;28:1073274820985786 - PubMed
  36. Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68 - PubMed
  37. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;14(12):749-762 - PubMed
  38. Eur Radiol. 2021 Jan;31(1):1-4 - PubMed

Publication Types