Radiomics-based prediction of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer at initial computed tomography evaluation

  • Jennifer S. Golia PernickaEmail author
  • Johan Gagniere
  • Jayasree Chakraborty
  • Rikiya Yamashita
  • Lorenzo Nardo
  • John M. Creasy
  • Iva Petkovska
  • Richard R. K. Do
  • David D. B. Bates
  • Viktoriya Paroder
  • Mithat Gonen
  • Martin R. Weiser
  • Amber L. Simpson
  • Marc J. Gollub
Special Section: Rectal Cancer



To predict microsatellite instability (MSI) status of colon cancer on preoperative CT imaging using radiomic analysis.


This retrospective study involved radiomic analysis of preoperative CT imaging of patients who underwent resection of stage II–III colon cancer from 2004 to 2012. A radiologist blinded to MSI status manually segmented the tumor region on CT images. 254 Intensity-based radiomic features were extracted from the tumor region. Three prediction models were developed with (1) only clinical features, (2) only radiomic features, and (3) “combined” clinical and radiomic features. Patients were randomly separated into training (n = 139) and test (n = 59) sets. The model was constructed from training data only; the test set was reserved for validation only. Model performance was evaluated using AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV.


Of the total 198 patients, 134 (68%) patients had microsatellite stable tumors and 64 (32%) patients had MSI tumors. The combined model performed slightly better than the other models, predicting MSI with an AUC of 0.80 for the training set and 0.79 for the test set (specificity = 96.8% and 92.5%, respectively), whereas the model with only clinical features achieved an AUC of 0.74 and the model with only radiomic features achieved an AUC of 0.76. The model with clinical features alone had the lowest specificity (70%) compared with the model with radiomic features alone (95%) and the combined model (92.5%).


Preoperative prediction of MSI status via radiomic analysis of preoperative CT adds specificity to clinical assessment and could contribute to personalized treatment selection.


Colon Colonic neoplasms Microsatellite repeats Microsatellite instability Immunotherapy 



The authors thank Joanne Chin, MFA, for her editorial support of this article. This study has received funding from NIH/NCI P30 CA008748 Cancer Center Support Grant and the Colorectal Cancer Research Center CC50367 at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    Cox VL, Saeed Bamashmos AA, Foo WC et al (2018) Lynch Syndrome: Genomics Update and Imaging Review. Radiographics 38:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al (2015) PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency. N Engl J Med 372:2509–2520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boland CR, Goel A (2010) Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138:2073–2087.e2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L et al (2004) Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2343–2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zauber NP, Sabbath-Solitare M, Marotta S, Perera LP, Bishop DT (2006) Adequacy of colonoscopic biopsy specimens for molecular analysis: a comparative study with colectomy tissue. Diagn Mol Pathol 15:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ et al (2016) Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Jama 315:2564–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Cancer Society American Cancer Society Guideline for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Available via Accessed November 1, 2018
  8. 8.
    van Heijl M, van Lanschot JJ, Koppert LB et al (2008) Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone for patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (CROSS). BMC Surg 8:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurogochi T, Honda M, Yamashita K et al (2018) Safety and efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy versus upfront surgery for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Today.
  10. 10.
    Hosoda K, Azuma M, Katada C et al (2018) A phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1, followed by gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for high-risk advanced gastric cancer: results of the KDOG1001 trial. Gastric Cancer.
  11. 11.
    Cercek A, Roxburgh CSD, Strombom P et al (2018) Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. JAMA Oncol 4:e180071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foxtrot Collaborative G (2012) Feasibility of preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced, operable colon cancer: the pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 13:1152–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horvat N, Veeraraghavan H, Khan M et al (2018) MR Imaging of Rectal Cancer: Radiomics Analysis to Assess Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy. Radiology 287:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang Y, Liu Z, He L et al (2016) Radiomics Signature: A Potential Biomarker for the Prediction of Disease-Free Survival in Early-Stage (I or II) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Radiology 281:947–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES et al (2016) MR Imaging Radiomics Signatures for Predicting the Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence as Given by Research Versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 Gene Assays. Radiology 281:382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T et al (2015) Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores. Eur Radiol 25:2840–2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Middha S, Zhang L, Nafa K et al (2017) Reliable Pan-Cancer Microsatellite Instability Assessment by Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Data. JCO Precision Oncology.
  18. 18.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-3:610–621Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tang X (1998) Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 7:1602–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recognition 29:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pietikäinen M, Hadid A, Zhao G, Ahonen T (2011) Local binary patterns for still imagesComputer vision using local binary patterns Computational Imaging and Vision, vol 40. Springer, London, pp 13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehta R, Egiazarian K (2013) Rotated Local Binary Pattern (RLBP): Rotation invariant texture descriptorInternational Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE, Barcelona, Spain, pp 497–502Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Kadi OS, Watson D (2008) Texture Analysis of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Lung Tumor CE CT Images. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 55:1822–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costa AF, Humpire-Mamani G, Traina AJM (2012) An Efficient Algorithm for Fractal Analysis of Textures2012 25th SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images, Ouro Preto, Brazil, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S, Mukhopadhyay S, Desautels JEL (2012) Statistical measures of orientation of texture for the detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer. Journal of Electronic Imaging 21:033010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chakraborty J, Rangayyan RM, Banik S, Mukhopadhyay S, Desautels JL (2012) Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms using statistical measures of orientation of textureMedical Imaging 2012: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 831521Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Attiyeh MA, Chakraborty J, Gazit L et al (2018) Preoperative risk prediction for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms by quantitative CT image analysis. HPB (Oxford).
  28. 28.
    Chakraborty J, Langdon-Embry L, Cunanan KM et al (2017) Preliminary study of tumor heterogeneity in imaging predicts two year survival in pancreatic cancer patients. PLoS One 12:e0188022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biau G (2012) Analysis of a Random Forests Model. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12:1063–1095Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sala E, Mema E, Himoto Y et al (2017) Unravelling tumour heterogeneity using next-generation imaging: radiomics, radiogenomics, and habitat imaging. Clin Radiol 72:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zheng J, Chakraborty J, Chapman WC et al (2017) Preoperative Prediction of Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Quantitative Image Analysis. J Am Coll Surg 225:778–788.e771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gado A, Ebeid B, Abdelmohsen A, Axon A (2011) Improving the Yield of Histological Sampling in Patients With Suspected Colorectal Cancer During Colonoscopy by Introducing a Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Program. Gastroenterology Res 4:157–161Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perrin T, Midya A, Yamashita R et al (2018) Short-term reproducibility of radiomic features in liver parenchyma and liver malignancies on contrast-enhanced CT imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY).
  34. 34.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (2018) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN guidelines): Colon Cancer. Version 4.2018. Available via Accessed December 7, 2018
  35. 35.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garcia-Figueiras R, Baleato-Gonzalez S, Padhani AR et al (2018) Advanced Imaging Techniques in Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer. Radiographics 38:740–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer S. Golia Pernicka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johan Gagniere
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jayasree Chakraborty
    • 2
  • Rikiya Yamashita
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Nardo
    • 1
    • 5
  • John M. Creasy
    • 2
  • Iva Petkovska
    • 1
  • Richard R. K. Do
    • 1
  • David D. B. Bates
    • 1
  • Viktoriya Paroder
    • 1
  • Mithat Gonen
    • 3
  • Martin R. Weiser
    • 2
  • Amber L. Simpson
    • 2
  • Marc J. Gollub
    • 1
  1. 1.Body Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Evelyn H. Lauder Breast CenterMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology & BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, U1071 INSERM / Clermont-Auvergne UniversityUniversity Hospital of Clermont-FerrandClermont-FerrandFrance
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California DavisSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations