Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After seminal papers over the period 2009 – 2011, the use of texture analysis of PET/CT images for quantification of intratumour uptake heterogeneity has received increasing attention in the last 4 years. Results are difficult to compare due to the heterogeneity of studies and lack of standardization. There are also numerous challenges to address. In this review we provide critical insights into the recent development of texture analysis for quantifying the heterogeneity in PET/CT images, identify issues and challenges, and offer recommendations for the use of texture analysis in clinical research. Numerous potentially confounding issues have been identified, related to the complex workflow for the calculation of textural features, and the dependency of features on various factors such as acquisition, image reconstruction, preprocessing, functional volume segmentation, and methods of establishing and quantifying correspondences with genomic and clinical metrics of interest. A lack of understanding of what the features may represent in terms of the underlying pathophysiological processes and the variability of technical implementation practices makes comparing results in the literature challenging, if not impossible. Since progress as a field requires pooling results, there is an urgent need for standardization and recommendations/guidelines to enable the field to move forward. We provide a list of correct formulae for usual features and recommendations regarding implementation. Studies on larger cohorts with robust statistical analysis and machine learning approaches are promising directions to evaluate the potential of this approach.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;3:573–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden PK, Cook GJ. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:133–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;21:249–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Willaime JM, Turkheimer FE, Kenny LM, Aboagye EO. Quantification of intra-tumour cell proliferation heterogeneity using imaging descriptors of 18F fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:187–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber WA, Schwaiger M, Avril N. Quantitative assessment of tumor metabolism using FDG-PET imaging. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:683–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Win T, Miles KA, Janes SM, Ganeshan B, Shastry M, Endozo R, et al. Tumor heterogeneity and permeability as measured on the CT component of PET/CT predict survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:3591–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Asselin MC, O’Connor JP, Boellaard R, Thacker NA, Jackson A. Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:447–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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;105:139–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nicolasjilwan M, Hu Y, Yan C, Meerzaman D, Holder CA, Gutman D, et al. Addition of MR imaging features and genetic biomarkers strengthens glioblastoma survival prediction in TCGA patients. J Neuroradiol. 2015;42:212–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yoon SH, Park CM, Park SJ, Yoon J-H, Hahn S, Goo JM. Tumor heterogeneity in lung cancer: assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2016. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151367

  13. Michallek F, Dewey M. Fractal analysis in radiological and nuclear medicine perfusion imaging: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:60–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Sullivan F, Roy S, Eary J. A statistical measure of tissue heterogeneity with application to 3D PET sarcoma data. Biostatistics. 2003;4:433–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gonzalez ME, Dinelle K, Vafai N, Heffernan N, McKenzie J, Appel-Cresswell S, et al. Novel spatial analysis method for PET images using 3D moment invariants: applications to Parkinson’s disease. Neuroimage. 2013;68:11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1636–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ganeshan B, Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:140–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202168/

  20. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout RG, Granton P, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:441–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278:563–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mir AH, Hanmandlu M, Tandon SN. Texture analysis of CT-images for early detection of liver malignancy. Biomed Sci Instrum. 1995;31:213–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schad LR, Blüml S, Zuna I. MR tissue characterization of intracranial tumors by means of texture analysis. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11:889–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;52:369–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hatt M, Hanzouli H, Rest CCL, Visvikis D. Comparison of edge-preserving filters for unbiased quantification in 18F-FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1828.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Vaquero JJ, Kinahan P. Positron emission tomography: current challenges and opportunities for technological advances in clinical and preclinical imaging systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2015;17:385–414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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, e0124165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66844.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ioannidis JPA. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014;11, e1001747.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Basu S, Kwee TC, Gatenby R, Saboury B, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Evolving role of molecular imaging with PET in detecting and characterizing heterogeneity of cancer tissue at the primary and metastatic sites, a plausible explanation for failed attempts to cure malignant disorders. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:987–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Rest CLC. The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1670–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Watabe T, Tatsumi M, Watabe H, Isohashi K, Kato H, Yanagawa M, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of F-18 FDG uptake differentiates between gastrointestinal stromal tumors and abdominal malignant lymphomas on PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:222–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim DH, Jung JH, Son SH, Kim CY, Jeong SY, Lee SW, et al. Quantification of intratumoral metabolic macroheterogeneity on 18F-FDG PET/CT and its prognostic significance in pathologic N0 squamous cell lung carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e70–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tixier F, Hatt M, Valla C, Fleury V, Lamour C, Ezzouhri S, et al. Visual versus quantitative assessment of intratumor 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity: prognostic value in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1235–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pyka T, Gempt J, Hiob D, Ringel F, Schlegel J, Bette S, et al. Textural analysis of pre-therapeutic [18F]-FET-PET and its correlation with tumor grade and patient survival in high-grade gliomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:133–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Majdoub M, Visvikis D, Tixier F, Hoeben B, Visser E, Cheze Le Rest C, et al. Proliferative 18F-FLT PET tumor volumes characterization for prediction of locoregional recurrence and disease-free survival in head and neck cancer. Presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Annual Meeting. 8–12 June 2013. Vancouver, Canada.

  38. 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;25:675–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Wan T, Bloch BN, Plecha D, Thompson CL, Gilmore H, Jaffe C, et al. A radio-genomics approach for identifying high risk estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers on DCE-MRI: preliminary results in predicting OncotypeDX risk scores. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21394. doi:10.1038/srep21394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tixier F, Groves AM, Goh V, Hatt M, Ingrand P, Le Rest CC, et al. Correlation of intra-tumor 18F-FDG uptake heterogeneity indices with perfusion CT derived parameters in colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9, e99567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tixier F, Hatt M, Rest CCL, Simon B, Key S, Corcos L, et al. Signaling pathways alteration involved in head and neck cancer can be identified through textural features analysis in 18F-FDG PET images: a prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:449.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Klyuzhin IS, Gonzalez M, Shahinfard E, Vafai N, Sossi V. Exploring the use of shape and texture descriptors of positron emission tomography tracer distribution in imaging studies of neurodegenerative disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015. doi:10.1177/0271678X15606718

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rahmim A, Salimpour Y, Jain S, Blinder SA, Klyuzhin IS, Smith GS, et al. Application of texture analysis to DAT SPECT imaging: relationship to clinical assessments. Neuroimage Clin. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.012

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hatt M, Tixier F, Rest CLC, Visvikis D. Nouveaux indices en TEP/TDM: mythe et réalités. Med Nucl. 2015;39:331–8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Carlier T, Bailly C. State-of-the-art and recent advances in quantification for therapeutic follow-up in oncology using PET. Front Med. 2015;2:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Houshmand S, Salavati A, Hess S, Werner TJ, Alavi A, Zaidi H. An update on novel quantitative techniques in the context of evolving whole-body PET imaging. PET Clin. 2015;10:45–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rahim MK, Kim SE, So H, Kim HJ, Cheon GJ, Lee ES, et al. Recent trends in PET image interpretations using volumetric and texture-based quantification methods in nuclear oncology. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48:1–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cheng NM, Fang YH, Yen TC. The promise and limits of PET texture analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:867–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bundschuh RA, Dinges J, Neumann L, Seyfried M, Zsótér N, Papp L, et al. Textural parameters of tumor heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT for therapy response assessment and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:891–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. van Velden FHP, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2

  53. Zhang L, Fried DV, Fave XJ, Hunter LA, Yang J, Court LE. IBEX: an open infrastructure software platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. Med Phys. 2015;42:1341–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fang YH, Lin CY, Shih MJ, Wang HM, Ho TY, Liao CT, et al. Development and evaluation of an open-source software package “CGITA” for quantifying tumor heterogeneity with molecular images. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:248505.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Vallières M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5471–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Leijenaar RT, Nalbantov G, Carvalho S, van Elmpt WJ, Troost EG, Boellaard R, et al. The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET radiomics: the need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, van Elmpt WJ, Parmar C, Hoekstra OS, et al. Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1391–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Doumou G, Siddique M, Tsoumpas C, Goh V, Cook GJ. The precision of textural analysis in (18)F-FDG-PET scans of oesophageal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2805–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Orlhac F, Soussan M, Maisonobe JA, Garcia CA, Vanderlinden B, Buvat I. Tumor texture analysis in 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:414–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallières 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;56:38–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hatt M, Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, Lambin P, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1690–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Dong X, Wu P, Sun X, Li W, Wan H, Yu J, et al. Intra-tumour 18F-FDG uptake heterogeneity decreases the reliability on target volume definition with positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59:338–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Geets X, Lee JA, Bol A, Lonneux M, Gregoire V. A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1427–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nelson A, Brockway K, Nelson A, Piper J. PET tumor segmentation: validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC PET phantom. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 2:1659

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hofheinz F, Langner J, Petr J, Beuthien-Baumann B, Steinbach J, Kotzerke J, et al. An automatic method for accurate volume delineation of heterogeneous tumors in PET. Med Phys. 2013;40:082503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hatt M, Rest C l C, Descourt P, Dekker A, De Ruysscher D, Oellers M, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:301–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW. Current measures of metabolic heterogeneity within cervical cancer do not predict disease outcome. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Groheux D, Majdoub M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Martineau A, Merlet P, et al. Do clinical, histological or immunohistochemical primary tumour characteristics translate into different (18)F-FDG PET/CT volumetric and heterogeneity features in stage II/III breast cancer? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1682–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW. FDG uptake heterogeneity in FIGO IIb cervical carcinoma does not predict pelvic lymph node involvement. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:294.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kidd EA, Grigsby PW. Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity of cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:5236–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yang F, Thomas MA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:716–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Soussan M, Orlhac F, Boubaya M, Zelek L, Ziol M, Eder V, et al. Relationship between tumor heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9, e94017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Yan J, Lim JC-S, 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;56:1667–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hatt M, Tixier F, Rest CLC, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Robustness of intratumour 18F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1662–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Brooks FJ, Grigsby PW. The effect of small tumor volumes on studies of intratumoral heterogeneity of tracer uptake. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:37–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Mi H, Petitjean C, Dubray B, Vera P, Ruan S. Robust feature selection to predict tumor treatment outcome. Artif Intell Med. 2015;64:195–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, Raunig DL, Gatsonis C, Huang EP, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2015;277:813–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance, FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy, version 1.05. RSNA; 2013.

  81. Yip S, McCall K, Aristophanous M, Chen AB, Aerts HJ, Berbeco R. Comparison of texture features derived from static and respiratory-gated PET images in non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9, e115510.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Oliver JA, Budzevich M, Zhang GG, Dilling TJ, Latifi K, Moros EG. Variability of image features computed from conventional and respiratory-gated PET/CT images of lung cancer. Transl Oncol. 2015;8:524–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Cheng NM, Fang YH, Tsan DL, Hsu CH, Yen TC. Respiration-averaged CT for attenuation correction of PET images – impact on PET texture features in non-small cell lung cancer patients. PLoS One. 2016;11, e0150509.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Tixier F, Vriens D, Cheze-Le Rest C, Hatt M, Disselhorst JA, Oyen WJ, et al. Comparison of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization between static and parametric 18F-FDG PET images in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.166918.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Nyflot MJ, Yang F, Byrd D, Bowen SR, Sandison GA, Kinahan PE. Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2015;2:041002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Pyka T, Bundschuh RA, Andratschke N, Mayer B, Specht HM, Papp L, et al. Textural features in pre-treatment [F18]-FDG-PET/CT are correlated with risk of local recurrence and disease-specific survival in early stage NSCLC patients receiving primary stereotactic radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Cook GJ, O’Brien ME, Siddique M, Chicklore S, Loi HY, Sharma B, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: heterogeneity of (18)F-FDG uptake at PET-association with treatment response and prognosis. Radiology. 2015;276:883–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Mu W, Chen Z, Liang Y, Shen W, Yang F, Dai R, et al. Staging of cervical cancer based on tumor heterogeneity characterized by texture features on (18)F-FDG PET images. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:5123–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Oh JS, Kang BC, Roh JL, Kim JS, Cho KJ, Lee SW, et al. Intratumor textural heterogeneity on pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET images predicts response and survival after chemoradiotherapy for hypopharyngeal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2746–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Cheng NM, Fang YH, Chang JT, Huang CG, Tsan DL, Ng SH, et al. Textural features of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images: prognostic significance in patients with advanced T-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1703–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Lovinfosse P, Janvary ZL, Coucke P, Jodogne S, Bernard C, Hatt M, et al. FDG PET/CT texture analysis for predicting the outcome of lung cancer treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3314-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Yip SS, Coroller TP, Sanford NN, Mamon H, Aerts HJ, Berbeco RI. Relationship between the temporal changes in positron-emission-tomography-imaging-based textural features and pathologic response and survival in esophageal cancer patients. Front Oncol. 2016;6:72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Cheng N-M, Fang Y-HD, Lee L, Chang JT-C, Tsan D-L, Ng S-H, et al. Zone-size nonuniformity of 18F-FDG PET regional textural features predicts survival in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:419–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Xu R, Kido S, Suga K, Hirano Y, Tachibana R, Muramatsu K, et al. Texture analysis on (18)F-FDG PET/CT images to differentiate malignant and benign bone and soft-tissue lesions. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:926–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Wu J, Aguilera T, Shultz D, Gudur M, Rubin DL, Loo BW, et al. Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: quantitative imaging characteristics of (18)F Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT allow prediction of distant metastasis. Radiology. 2016. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151829.

    Google Scholar 

  96. 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, e0137036.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. van Rossum PS, Fried DV, Zhang L, Hofstetter WL, van Vulpen M, Meijer GJ, et al. The incremental value of subjective and quantitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET for the prediction of pathologic complete response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:691–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Gao X, Chu C, Li Y, Lu P, Wang W, Liu W, et al. The method and efficacy of support vector machine classifiers based on texture features and multi-resolution histogram from (18)F-FDG PET-CT images for the evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:312–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Desseroit MC, Visvikis D, Tixier F, Majdoub M, Guillevin R, Perdrisot R, et al. Development of a nomogram combining clinical staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT image features in non-small-cell lung cancer stage I-III. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3325-5.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Fried DV, Mawlawi O, Zhang L, Fave X, Zhou S, Ibbott G, et al. Stage III non-small cell lung cancer: prognostic value of FDG PET quantitative imaging features combined with clinical prognostic factors. Radiology. 2016;278:214–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Ohri N, Duan F, Snyder BS, Wei B, Machtay M, Alavi A, et al. Pretreatment 18FDG-PET textural features in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: secondary analysis of ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235. J Nucl Med. 2016. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.166934.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Hyun SH, Kim HS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Lee JK, Lee KH, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of 18F-FDG uptake predicts survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3316-6

    Google Scholar 

  103. Lartizien C, Rogez M, Niaf E, Ricard F. Computer-aided staging of lymphoma patients with FDG PET/CT imaging based on textural information. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2014;18:946–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Bang JI, Ha S, Kang SB, Lee KW, Lee HS, Kim JS, et al. Prediction of neoadjuvant radiation chemotherapy response and survival using pretreatment [(18)F]FDG PET/CT scans in locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016:43:422–31.

  105. Vaidya M, Creach KM, Frye J, Dehdashti F, Bradley JD, El Naqa I. Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:239–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Antunes J, Viswanath S, Rusu M, Valls L, Hoimes C, Avril N, et al. Radiomics analysis on FLT-PET/MRI for characterization of early treatment response in renal cell carcinoma: a proof-of-concept study. Transl Oncol. 2016;9:155–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Wang HM, Cheng NM, Lee LY, Fang YH, Chang JT, Tsan DL, et al. Heterogeneity of (18) F-FDG PET combined with expression of EGFR may improve the prognostic stratification of advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:731–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 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.

  109. Yoon HJ, Sohn I, Cho JH, Lee HY, Kim JH, Choi YL, et al. Decoding tumor phenotypes for ALK, ROS1, and RET fusions in lung adenocarcinoma using a radiomics approach. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94, e1753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Upadhaya T, Morvan Y, Stindel E, Le Reste PJ, Hatt M. A framework for multimodal imaging-based prognostic model building: preliminary study on multimodal MRI in glioblastoma multiforme. IRBM, 2015;36:345–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Wang J, Kato F, Oyama-Manabe N, Li R, Cui Y, Tha KK, et al. Identifying triple-negative breast cancer using background parenchymal enhancement heterogeneity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a pilot radiomics study. PLoS One. 2015;10, e0143308.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Cameron A, Khalvati F, Haider M, Wong A. MAPS: a quantitative radiomics approach for prostate cancer detection. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63:1145–56.

  113. Khalvati F, Wong A, Haider MA. Automated prostate cancer detection via comprehensive multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging texture feature models. BMC Med Imaging. 2015;15:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Sharma RR, Marikkannu P. Hybrid RGSA and support vector machine framework for three-dimensional magnetic resonance brain tumor classification. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015, 184350.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Pandis N, Fedorowicz Z. The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011. doi:10.1590/S1678-77572011000500001.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Issam El Naqa, Philippe Lambin, Hugo Aerts, Ralph Leijenaar, Floris Van Velden, Martin Vallières, Arman Rahmim, Matt Nyflot and Art Chaovalitwongse, as well as the members of the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance and the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network for many helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSERM, UMR 1101, LaTIM, University of Brest IBSAM, Brest, France

    Mathieu Hatt & Dimitris Visvikis

  2. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Poitiers, France

    Florent Tixier & Catherine Cheze Le Rest

  3. Medical school, EE DACTIM, University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France

    Florent Tixier & Catherine Cheze Le Rest

  4. Imaging Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Larry Pierce & Paul E. Kinahan

Authors
  1. Mathieu Hatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florent Tixier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larry Pierce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul E. Kinahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Cheze Le Rest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dimitris Visvikis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Hatt.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Supported in part by NIH grant U01-CA148131.

This work has received a French government support granted to the CominLabs excellence laboratory and managed by the National Research Agency in the “Investing for the Future” program under reference ANR-10-LABX-07-01. With the support of the National Institute of Cancer (INCa project #C14020NS).

Conflicts of interest

P.E.K. has received a research grant from GE Healthcare and is cofounder of PET/X LLC.

The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1.43 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hatt, M., Tixier, F., Pierce, L. et al. Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44, 151–165 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3427-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3427-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation