4.7 Article

Radiomic feature clusters and Prognostic Signatures specific for Lung and Head & Neck cancer

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep11044

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health [NIH-USA U01 CA 143062-01, NIH-USA U01 CA 190234-01]
  2. EU 7th framework program (EURECA)
  3. Kankeronderzoekfonds Limburg from Health Foundation Limburg
  4. Dutch Cancer Society [KWF UM 2009-4454, KWF MAC 2013-6425]
  5. EU 7th framework program (ARTFORCE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiomics provides a comprehensive quantification of tumor phenotypes by extracting and mining large number of quantitative image features. To reduce the redundancy and compare the prognostic characteristics of radiomic features across cancer types, we investigated cancer-specific radiomic feature clusters in four independent Lung and Head & Neck (H&N) cancer cohorts (in total 878 patients). Radiomic features were extracted from the pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) images. Consensus clustering resulted in eleven and thirteen stable radiomic feature clusters for Lung and H&N cancer, respectively. These clusters were validated in independent external validation cohorts using rand statistic (Lung RS = 0.92, p < 0.001, H&N RS = 0.92, p < 0.001). Our analysis indicated both common as well as cancer-specific clustering and clinical associations of radiomic features. Strongest associations with clinical parameters: Prognosis Lung CI = 0.60 +/- 0.01, Prognosis H&N CI = 0.68 +/- 0.01; Lung histology AUC = 0.56 +/- 0.03, Lung stage AUC = 0.61 +/- 0.01, H&N HPV AUC = 0.58 +/- 0.03, H&N stage AUC = 0.77 +/- 0.02. Full utilization of these cancer-specific characteristics of image features may further improve radiomic biomarkers, providing a non-invasive way of quantifying and monitoring tumor phenotypic characteristics in clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available