Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Biomarker Measurements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Imaging Biomarkers

Abstract

Imaging biomarkers are health or disease markers based on quantitative imaging parameters. With high-throughput computing, it is now possible to extract numerous quantitative features from computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and positron emission tomography (PET) images. The conversion of digital medical images into mineable high-dimensional data is called radiomics and is motivated by the concept that biomedical images contain information that reflects underlying pathophysiology [1, 2]. The image measurements are based on size, volume, and shape assessment and on signal intensity and heterogeneity (texture) analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kumar V, Gu Y, Basu S, Berglund A, Eschrich SA, Schabath MB, et al. Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1234–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures they are data. Radiology. 2016;278(2):563–77. Epub 2015/11/19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47(1):207–14. Epub 1981/01/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205–16. Epub 2000/02/03.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47. Epub 2008/12/23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jain RK, Lee JJ, Ng C, Hong D, Gong J, Naing A, et al. Change in tumor size by RECIST correlates linearly with overall survival in phase I oncology studies. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2684–90. Epub 2012/06/13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(19):1455–61. Epub 2007/09/27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, Bang YJ, Borbath I, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):501–13. Epub 2011/02/11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma MR, Maitland ML, Ratain MJ. RECIST: no longer the sharpest tool in the oncology clinical trials toolbox---point. Cancer Res. 2012;72(20):5145–9; discussion 50. Epub 2012/09/07.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Geschwind JF, Eng J, Corona-Villalobos CP, et al. Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(3):487–96. Epub 2014/01/07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dinkel J, Khalilzadeh O, Hintze C, Fabel M, Puderbach M, Eichinger M, et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of semi-automatic tumor diameter measurement and volumetric analysis in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2013;82(1):76–82. Epub 2013/08/13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Le Cesne A, Van Glabbeke M, Verweij J, Casali PG, Findlay M, Reichardt P, et al. Absence of progression as assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors predicts survival in advanced GI stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate: the intergroup EORTC-ISG-AGITG phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(24):3969–74. Epub 2009/07/22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30(1):52–60. Epub 2010/02/23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(13):1753–9. Epub 2007/05/02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ronot M, Bouattour M, Wassermann J, Bruno O, Dreyer C, Larroque B, et al. Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) Versus RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Oncologist. 2014;19(4):394–402. Epub 2014/03/22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Michoux N, Vallee JP, Pechere-Bertschi A, Montet X, Buehler L, Van Beers BE. Analysis of contrast-enhanced MR images to assess renal function. MAGMA. 2006;19(4):167–79. Epub 2006/08/15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hermoye L, Laamari-Azjal I, Cao Z, Annet L, Lerut J, Dawant BM, et al. Liver segmentation in living liver transplant donors: comparison of semiautomatic and manual methods. Radiology. 2005;234(1):171–8. Epub 2004/11/27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Parmar C, Rios Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Jermoumi M, Carvalho S, Mak RH, et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PLoS One. 2014;9(7), e102107. Epub 2014/07/16.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Michoux N, Simoni P, Tombal B, Peeters F, Machiels JP, Lecouvet F. Evaluation of DCE-MRI postprocessing techniques to assess metastatic bone marrow in patients with prostate cancer. Clin Imaging. 2012;36(4):308–15. Epub 2012/06/26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Michoux N, Van den Broeck S, Lacoste L, Fellah L, Galant C, Berliere M, et al. Texture analysis on MR images helps predicting non-response to NAC in breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:574. Epub 2015/08/06.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pathak SD, Chalana V, Kim Y. Interactive automatic fetal head measurements from ultrasound images using multimedia computer technology. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23(5):665–73. Epub 1997/01/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sebbahi A, Herment A, de Cesare A, Mousseaux E. Multimodality cardiovascular image segmentation using a deformable contour model. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1997;21(2):79–89. Epub 1997/03/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hojjatoleslami SA, Kittler J. Region growing: a new approach. IEEE Trans Image Process. 1998;7(7):1079–84. Epub 2008/02/16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Likas A, Vlassis N, Verbeek JJ. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recogn. 2003;36:451–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heye T, Merkle EM, Reiner CS, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, Feuerlein S, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. Radiology. 2013;266(3):812–21. Epub 2012/12/12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tahmasbi A, Saki F, Shokouhi SB. Classification of benign and malignant masses based on Zernike moments. Comput Biol Med. 2011;41(8):726–35. Epub 2011/07/05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yap FY, Bui JT, Knuttinen MG, Walzer NM, Cotler SJ, Owens CA, et al. Quantitative morphometric analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma: development of a programmed algorithm and preliminary application. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19(2):97–105. Epub 2012/12/13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Carvalho S, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006. Epub 2014/06/04.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Haralick RMSK, Dinstein IH. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;3(6):610–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thibault G, Angulo J, Meyer F. Advanced statistical matrices for texture characterization: application to cell classification. IEEE Trans Bio-Med Eng. 2014;61(3):630–7. Epub 2013/10/11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Alberich-Bayarri A, Marti-Bonmati L, Angeles Perez M, Sanz-Requena R, Lerma-Garrido JJ, Garcia-Marti G, et al. Assessment of 2D and 3D fractal dimension measurements of trabecular bone from high-spatial resolution magnetic resonance images at 3 T. Med Phys. 2010;37(9):4930–7. Epub 2010/10/23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 2012;3(6):573–89. Epub 2012/10/25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Augusteijn MF, Clements L, Shaw KA. Performance evaluation of texture measures for ground cover identification in satellite images by means of a neural network classifier. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 1995;33(3):616–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Proisy C, Couteron P, Fromard F. Predicting and mapping mangrove biomass from canopy grain analysis using Fourier-based textural ordination of IKONOS images. Remote Sens Environ. 2007;109:379–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Manjunath BS, Ma WY. Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1996;18(8):837–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peng H, Long F, Ding C. Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2005;27(8):1226–38. Epub 2005/08/27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brown G, Pocock A, Zhao MJ, Lujan M. Conditional likelihood maximisation: a unifying framework for information theoretic feature selection. J Mach Learn Res. 2012;13(1):27–66.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Rietveld D, Rietbergen MM, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Radiomic machine-learning classifiers for prognostic biomarkers of head and neck cancer. Front Oncol. 2015;5:272. Epub 2015/12/24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D. Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(25):14863–8. Epub 1998/12/09.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee SM, Abbott PA. Bayesian networks for knowledge discovery in large datasets: basics for nurse researchers. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36(4-5):389–99. Epub 2003/12/04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lambin P, Zindler J, Vanneste BG, De Voorde LV, Eekers D, Compter I, et al. Decision support systems for personalized and participative radiation oncology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016. pii:S0169-409X(16)30008-4. Epub 2016/01/18.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wang S, Summers RM. Machine learning and radiology. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(5):933–51. Epub 2012/04/03.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13087. Epub 2015/08/19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ypsilantis PP, Siddique M, Sohn HM, Davies A, Cook G, Goh V, et al. Predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with PET imaging using convolutional neural networks. PLoS One. 2015;10(9), e0137036. Epub 2015/09/12.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. Epub 2011/03/08.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50. Epub 2009/06/24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Beers BE, Daire JL, Garteiser P. New imaging techniques for liver diseases. J Hepatol. 2015;62(3):690–700. Epub 2014/12/03.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Burrell RA, McGranahan N, Bartek J, Swanton C. The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution. Nature. 2013;501(7467):338–45. Epub 2013/09/21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Junttila MR, de Sauvage FJ. Influence of tumour micro-environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response. Nature. 2013;501(7467):346–54. Epub 2013/09/21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, Adler AS, Gollub J, Chen X, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(6):675–80. Epub 2007/05/23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ. Quantitative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology. 2013;269(1):8–15. Epub 2013/09/26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. O'Connor JP, Rose CJ, Waterton JC, Carano RA, Parker GJ, Jackson A. Imaging intratumor heterogeneity: role in therapy response, resistance, and clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(2):249–57. Epub 2014/11/26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, McGovern S, Jayaraman M, Liang Y, et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(13):5213–8. Epub 2008/03/26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang CD, Leung AN, Xu Y, Quon A, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data—methods and preliminary results. Radiology. 2012;264(2):387–96. Epub 2012/06/23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ng F, Ganeshan B, Kozarski R, Miles KA, Goh V. Assessment of primary colorectal cancer heterogeneity by using whole-tumor texture analysis: contrast-enhanced CT texture as a biomarker of 5-year survival. Radiology. 2013;266(1):177–84. Epub 2012/11/16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallieres M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Groheux D, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):38–44. Epub 2014/12/17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, Goh V, Chicklore S, Roy A, et al. Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med. 2013;54(1):19–26. Epub 2012/12/04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y, Rios Velazquez E, Leijenaar RT, Hermann G, et al. CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(3):345–50. Epub 2015/03/10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, Vargas HA, et al. Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(46):E6265–73. Epub 2015/11/19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(3):369–78. Epub 2011/02/16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. O'Connor JP, Rose CJ, Jackson A, Watson Y, Cheung S, Maders F, et al. DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour heterogeneity predict CRC liver metastasis shrinkage following bevacizumab and FOLFOX-6. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):139–45. Epub 2011/06/16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Zhou M, Hall L, Goldgof D, Russo R, Balagurunathan Y, Gillies R, et al. Radiologically defined ecological dynamics and clinical outcomes in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary results. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(1):5–13. Epub 2014/04/29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Buvat I, Orlhac F, Soussan M. Tumor texture analysis in PET: where do we stand? J Nucl Med. 2015;56(11):1642–4. Epub 2015/08/22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Yan J, Chu-Shern JL, Loi HY, Khor LK, Sinha AK, Quek ST, et al. Impact of image reconstruction settings on texture features in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(11):1667–73. Epub 2015/08/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Chalkidou A, O'Doherty MJ, Marsden PK. False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(5), e0124165. Epub 2015/05/06.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Br J Surg. 2015;102(3):148–58. Epub 2015/01/30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Imaging Biomarkers, UMR 1149 INSERM – University Paris Diderot, Paris, France

    Bernard E. Van Beers, Benjamin Leporq, Sabrina Doblas & Philippe Garteiser

  2. Beaujon University Hospital Paris Nord, Paris, France

    Bernard E. Van Beers, Benjamin Leporq, Sabrina Doblas & Philippe Garteiser

Authors
  1. Bernard E. Van Beers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Leporq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabrina Doblas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philippe Garteiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard E. Van Beers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. La Fe University and Polithecnic Hospital, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Luis Martí-Bonmatí

  2. La Fe University and Polithecnic Hospital, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Angel Alberich-Bayarri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Beers, B.E., Leporq, B., Doblas, S., Garteiser, P. (2017). Imaging Biomarker Measurements. In: Martí-Bonmatí, L., Alberich-Bayarri, A. (eds) Imaging Biomarkers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43504-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43504-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43502-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43504-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation