Evidence Hub

Radiomics Features Differentiate Between Normal and Tumoral High-Fdg Uptake

Hsu CY, Doubrovin M, Hua CH, Mohammed O, Shulkin BL, Kaste S, Federico S, Metzger M et al.

Scientific reports, 2018

23 participants

Abstract

Identification of FDGavid- neoplasms may be obscured by high-uptake normal tissues, thus limiting inferences about the natural history of disease. We introduce a FDG-PET radiomics tissue classifier for differentiating FDGavid- normal tissues from tumor. Thirty-three scans from 15 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 68 scans from 23 patients with Ewing sarcoma treated on two prospective clinical trials were retrospectively analyzed. Disease volumes were manually segmented on FDG-PET and CT scans. Brain, heart, kidneys and bladder and tumor volumes were automatically segmented on PET images. Standard-uptake-value (SUV) derived shape and first order radiomics features were computed to build a random forest classifier. Manually segmented volumes were compared to automatically segmented tumor volumes. Classifier accuracy for normal tissues was 90%. Classifier performance was varied across normal tissue types (brain, left kidney and bladder, hear and right kidney were 100%, 96%, 97%, 83% and 87% respectively). Automatically segmented tumor volumes showed high concordance with the manually segmented tumor volumes (R2 = 0.97). Inclusion of texture-based radiomics features minimally contributed to classifier performance. Accurate normal tissue segmentation and classification facilitates accurate identification of FDGavid tissues and classification of those tissues as either tumor or normal tissue.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 23 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free