4.0 Article

Combining Structural and Textural Assessments of Volumetric FDG-PET Uptake in NSCLC

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TRPMS.2019.2912433

关键词

FDG-PET; heterogeneity; machine learning; metabolic gradient; nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC); prognosis; radiomics; spatial modeling; texture

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI-PI 11/1027]
  2. National Cancer Institute [NCI R33-CA225310, P01-CA042045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous studies have reported the prognostic utility of texture analyses and the effectiveness of radiomics in PET and PET/ CT assessment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we explore the potential, relative to this methodology, of an alternative model-based approach to tumour characterization, which was successfully applied to sarcoma in previous works. The spatial distribution of 3-D FDG-PET uptake is evaluated in the spatial referential determined by the best-fitting ellipsoidal pattern, which provides a univariate uptake profile function of the radial position of intratumoral voxels. A group of structural features is extracted from this fit that include two heterogeneity variables and statistical summaries of local metabolic gradients. We demonstrate that these variables capture aspects of tumour metabolism that are separate to those described by conventional texture features. Prognostic model selection is performed in terms of a number of classifiers, including stepwise selection of logistic models, LASSO, random forests and neural networks with respect to two-year survival status. Our results for a cohort of 93 NSCLC patients show that structural variables have significant prognostic potential, and that they may be used in conjunction with texture features in a traditional radiomics sense, toward improved baseline multivariate models of patient overall survival. The statistical significance of these models also demonstrates the relevance of these machine learning classifiers for prognostic variable selection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据