Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 99–108 | Cite as

Radiomics as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker: Practical Considerations and the Current Standpoint in Neuro-oncologic Studies

  • Ji Eun Park
  • Ho Sung Kim


Radiomics utilizes high-dimensional imaging data to discover the association with diagnostic, prognostic, predictive endpoint or radiogenomics. It is an emerging field of study that potentially depicts the intratumoral heterogeneity from quantitative and classified high-throughput data. The radiomics approach has an analytic pipeline where the imaging features are extracted, processed and analyzed. At this point, special data handling is essential because it faces issues of a high-dimensional biomarker compared to a single biomarker approach. This article describes the potential role of radiomics in oncologic studies, the basic analytic pipeline and special data handling with high-dimensional data to facilitate the radiomics approach as a tool for personalized medicine in oncology.


Radiomics High-dimensional Imaging Modeling Neuro-oncology Magnetic resonance 



This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (1720030).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ji Eun Park and Ho Sung Kim 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 and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

The institutional review board of our institute approved this retrospective study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.


  1. 1.
    Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Qi J, Xie C, Lu L, et al. Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23428.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu L, Ehmke RC, Schwartz LH, Zhao B. Assessing agreement between radiomic features computed for multiple CT imaging settings. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0166550.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shinohara RT, Sweeney EM, Goldsmith J, Shiee N, Mateen FJ, Calabresi PA, et al. Statistical normalization techniques for magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin. 2014;6:9–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nolden M, Zelzer S, Seitel A, Wald D, Muller M, Franz AM, et al. The medical imaging interaction toolkit: challenges and advances: 10 years of open-source development. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8:607–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avants BB, Tustison NJ, Song G, Cook PA, Klein A, Gee JC. A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. NeuroImage. 2011;54:2033–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, et al. 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1323–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278:563–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Achrol AS, Xu J, Echegaray S, Steinberg GK, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology. 2014;273:168–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain R, Poisson LM, Gutman D, Scarpace L, Hwang SN, Holder CA, et al. Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology. 2014;272:484–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee G, Lee HY, Park H, Schiebler ML, van Beek EJR, Ohno Y, et al. Radiomics and its emerging role in lung cancer research, imaging biomarkers and clinical management: state of the art. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:297–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, Choi CG, Kim SJ. Histogram analysis of amide proton transfer imaging to identify contrast-enhancing low-grade brain tumor that mimics high-grade tumor: increased accuracy of MR perfusion. Radiology. 2015;277:151–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baek HJ, Kim HS, Kim N, Choi YJ, Kim YJ. Percent change of perfusion skewness and kurtosis: a potential imaging biomarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology. 2012;264:834–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang JZ. Wavelets and imaging informatics: a review of the literature. J Biomed Inform. 2001;34:129–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alobaidli S, McQuaid S, South C, Prakash V, Evans P, Nisbet A. The role of texture analysis in imaging as an outcome predictor and potential tool in radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140369.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin YC, Lin G, Hong JH, Lin YP, Chen FH, Ng SH, et al. Diffusion radiomics analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity in a murine prostate cancer model following radiotherapy: pixelwise correlation with histology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46(2):483–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu W, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Quackenbush J, Lambin P, Bussink J, et al. Exploratory study to identify radiomics classifiers for lung cancer histology. Front Oncol. 2016;6:71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography. 2013;36:27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman JH. On bias, variance, 0/1 - loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Min Knowl Disc. 1997;1:55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES, Huang E, Drukker K, Hoadley KA, et al. Quantitative MRI radiomics in the prediction of molecular classifications of breast cancer subtypes in the TCGA/TCIA data set. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016.
  20. 20.
    Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinnott JA, Cai T. Inference for survival prediction under the regularized Cox model. Biostatistics. 2016;17:692–707.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Du P, Ma SG, Liang H. Penalized variable selection procedure for Cox models with semiparametric relative risk. Ann Stat. 2010;38:2092–117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hothorn T, Buhlmann P. Model-based boosting in high dimensions. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2828–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li H, Luan Y. Boosting proportional hazards models using smoothing splines, with applications to high-dimensional microarray data. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:2403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mogensen UB, Ishwaran H, Gerds TA. Evaluating random forests for survival analysis using prediction error curves. J Stat Softw. 2012;50:1–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishwaran H, Gerds TA, Kogalur UB, Moore RD, Gange SJ, Lau BM. Random survival forests for competing risks. Biostatistics. 2014;15:757–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Chen X, Minn AJ. Random survival forests for high-dimensional data. Stat Anal Data Mining. 2011;4:115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1995;57:289–300.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuo MD, Jamshidi N. Behind the numbers: decoding molecular phenotypes with radiogenomics—guiding principles and technical considerations. Radiology. 2014;270:320–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Narang S, Lehrer M, Yang D, Lee J, Rao A. Radiomics in glioblastoma: current status, challenges and potential opportunities. Transl Cancer Res. 2016;5:383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zacharaki EI, Wang S, Chawla S, Yoo DS, Wolf R, Melhem ER, et al. Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62:1609–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J-b Q, Liu Z, Zhang H, Shen C, Wang X-C, Tan Y, et al. Grading of gliomas by using radiomic features on multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:2168–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu J, Shi Z, Lian Y, Li Z, Liu T, Gao Y, et al. Noninvasive IDH1 mutation estimation based on a quantitative radiomics approach for grade II glioma. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:3509–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lopez CJ, Nagornaya N, Parra NA, Kwon D, Ishkanian F, Markoe AM, et al. Association of radiomics and metabolic tumor volumes in radiation treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:586–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wiestler B, Kluge A, Lukas M, Gempt J, Ringel F, Schlegel J, et al. Multiparametric MRI-based differentiation of WHO grade II/III glioma and WHO grade IV glioblastoma. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35142.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou H, Vallieres M, Bai HX, Su C, Tang H, Oldridge D, et al. MRI features predict survival and molecular markers in diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(6):862–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee J, Narang S, Martinez JJ, Rao G, Rao A. Associating spatial diversity features of radiologically defined tumor habitats with epidermal growth factor receptor driver status and 12-month survival in glioblastoma: methods and preliminary investigation. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2015;2:041006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Macyszyn L, Akbari H, Pisapia JM, Da X, Attiah M, Pigrish V, et al. Imaging patterns predict patient survival and molecular subtype in glioblastoma via machine learning techniques. Neuro-Oncology. 2015;18:417–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A, Gotz M, Eidel O, Schlemmer HP, et al. Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology. 2016;280:880–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ingrisch M, Schneider MJ, Norenberg D, Negrao de Figueiredo G, Maier-Hein K, Suchorska B, et al. Radiomic analysis reveals prognostic information in T1-weighted baseline magnetic resonance imaging in patients with glioblastoma. Investig Radiol. 2017;52:360–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rao A, Rao G, Gutman DA, Flanders AE, Hwang SN, Rubin DL, et al. A combinatorial radiographic phenotype may stratify patient survival and be associated with invasion and proliferation characteristics in glioblastoma. J Neurosurg. 2016;124:1008–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prasanna P, Patel J, Partovi S, Madabhushi A, Tiwari P. Radiomic features from the peritumoral brain parenchyma on treatment-naive multi-parametric MR imaging predict long versus short-term survival in glioblastoma multiforme: Preliminary findings. 2017. 27(10):4188–4197.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    McGarry SD, Hurrell SL, Kaczmarowski AL, Cochran EJ, Connelly J, Rand SD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomic profiles predict patient prognosis in newly diagnosed glioblastoma before therapy. Tomography. 2016;2:223–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kickingereder P, Gotz M, Muschelli J, Wick A, Neuberger U, Shinohara RT, et al. Large-scale radiomic profiling of recurrent glioblastoma identifies an imaging predictor for stratifying anti-angiogenic treatment response. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:5765–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lohmann P, Lerche C, Stoffels G, Filss CP, Stegmayr C, Neumaier B, et al. P09.26 FET PET radiomics - diagnosis of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients based on textural features. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19:iii75–ii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kickingereder P, Bonekamp D, Nowosielski M, Kratz A, Sill M, Burth S, et al. Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology. 2016;281:907–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hu LS, Ning S, Eschbacher JM, Baxter LC, Gaw N, Ranjbar S, et al. Radiogenomics to characterize regional genetic heterogeneity in glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19:128–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gutman DA, Dunn WD Jr, Grossmann P, Cooper LA, Holder CA, Ligon KL, et al. Somatic mutations associated with MRI-derived volumetric features in glioblastoma. Neuroradiology. 2015;57:1227–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jamshidi N, Diehn M, Bredel M, Kuo MD. Illuminating radiogenomic characteristics of glioblastoma multiforme through integration of MR imaging, messenger RNA expression, and DNA copy number variation. Radiology. 2014;270:1–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gutman DA, Cooper LA, Hwang SN, Holder CA, Gao J, Aurora TD, et al. MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology. 2013;267:560–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Abrol S, Kotrotsou A, Hassan A, Elshafeey N, Hassan I, Idris T, et al. Radiomic analysis of pseudo-progression compared to true progression in glioblastoma patients: a large-scale multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2015.
  52. 52.
    O'Connor JPB, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, Aerts HJWL, Barrington SF, Beer AJ, et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;advance online publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of MedicineAsan Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations