Premium
SU‐E‐J‐245: Sensitivity of FDG PET Feature Analysis in Multi‐Plane Vs. Single‐Plane Extraction
Author(s) -
Harmon S,
Galavis P,
Jeraj R
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4924331
Subject(s) - feature extraction , feature (linguistics) , artificial intelligence , sensitivity (control systems) , pattern recognition (psychology) , iterative reconstruction , mathematics , texture (cosmology) , plane (geometry) , nuclear medicine , computer science , medicine , geometry , image (mathematics) , engineering , philosophy , linguistics , electronic engineering
Purpose: Sensitivity of PET‐derived texture features to reconstruction methods has been reported for features extracted from axial planes; however, studies often utilize three dimensional techniques. This work aims to quantify the impact of multi‐plane (3D) vs. single‐plane (2D) feature extraction on radiomics‐based analysis, including sensitivity to reconstruction parameters and potential loss of spatial information. Methods: Twenty‐three patients with solid tumors underwent [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT scans under identical protocols. PET data were reconstructed using five sets of reconstruction parameters. Tumors were segmented using an automatic, in‐house algorithm robust to reconstruction variations. 50 texture features were extracted using two Methods: 2D patches along axial planes and 3D patches. For each method, sensitivity of features to reconstruction parameters was calculated as percent difference relative to the average value across reconstructions. Correlations between feature values were compared when using 2D and 3D extraction. Results: 21/50 features showed significantly different sensitivity to reconstruction parameters when extracted in 2D vs 3D (wilcoxon α<0.05), assessed by overall range of variation, Rangevar(%). Eleven showed greater sensitivity to reconstruction in 2D extraction, primarily first‐order and co‐occurrence features (average Rangevar increase 83%). The remaining ten showed higher variation in 3D extraction (average Range var increase 27%), mainly co‐occurence and greylevel run‐length features. Correlation of feature value extracted in 2D and feature value extracted in 3D was poor (R<0.5) in 12/50 features, including eight co‐occurrence features. Feature‐to‐feature correlations in 2D were marginally higher than 3D, ∣R∣>0.8 in 16% and 13% of all feature combinations, respectively. Larger sensitivity to reconstruction parameters were seen for inter‐feature correlation in 2D(σ=6%) than 3D (σ<1%) extraction. Conclusion: Sensitivity and correlation of various texture features were shown to significantly differ between 2D and 3D extraction. Additionally, inter‐feature correlations were more sensitive to reconstruction variation using single‐plane extraction. This work highlights a need for standardized feature extraction/selection techniques in radiomics.