Prospective Evaluation of Repeatability and Robustness of Radiomic Descriptors in Healthy Brain Tissue Regions In Vivo Across Systematic Variations in T2-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Acquisition Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Radiomic descriptors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are promising for disease diagnosis and characterization but may be sensitive to differences in imaging parameters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability and robustness of radiomic descriptors within healthy brain tissue regions on prospectively acquired MRI scans; in a test-retest setting, under controlled systematic variations of MRI acquisition parameters, and after postprocessing. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifteen healthy participants. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3.0 T, axial T2 -weighted 2D turbo spin-echo pulse sequence, 181 scans acquired (2 test/retest reference scans and 12 with systematic variations in contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration per participant; removing scans with artifacts). ASSESSMENT: One hundred and forty-six radiomic descriptors were extracted from a contiguous 2D region of white matter in each scan, before and after postprocessing. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability was assessed in a test/retest setting and between manual and automated annotations for the reference scan. Robustness was evaluated between the reference scan and each group of variant scans (contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration). Both repeatability and robustness were quantified as the proportion of radiomic descriptors that fell into distinct ranges of the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC): excellent (CCC > 0.85), good (0.7 ≤ CCC ≤ 0.85), moderate (0.5 ≤ CCC < 0.7), and poor (CCC < 0.5); for unprocessed and postprocessed scans separately. RESULTS: Good to excellent repeatability was observed for 52% of radiomic descriptors between test/retest scans and 48% of descriptors between automated vs. manual annotations, respectively. Contrast weighting (TR/TE) changes were associated with the largest proportion of highly robust radiomic descriptors (21%, after processing). Image resolution changes resulted in the largest proportion of poorly robust radiomic descriptors (97%, before postprocessing). Postprocessing of images with only resolution/acceleration differences resulted in 73% of radiomic descriptors showing poor robustness. DATA CONCLUSIONS: Many radiomic descriptors appear to be nonrobust across variations in MR contrast weighting, resolution, and acceleration, as well in test-retest settings, depending on feature formulation and postprocessing. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Comparing radiomic classifiers and classifier ensembles for detection of peripheral zone prostate tumors on T2-weighted MRI: a multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: For most computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) problems involving prostate cancer detection via medical imaging data, the choice of classifier has been largely ad hoc, or been motivated by classifier comparison studies that have involved large synthetic datasets. More significantly, it is currently unknown how classifier choices and trends generalize across multiple institutions, due to heterogeneous acquisition and intensity characteristics (especially when considering MR imaging data). In this work, we empirically evaluate and compare a number of different classifiers and classifier ensembles in a multi-site setting, for voxel-wise detection of prostate cancer (PCa) using radiomic texture features derived from high-resolution in vivo T2-weighted (T2w) MRI. METHODS: Twelve different supervised classifier schemes: Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), naïve Bayes, Decision Trees (DTs), and their ensemble variants (bagging, boosting), were compared in terms of classification accuracy as well as execution time. Our study utilized 85 prostate cancer T2w MRI datasets acquired from across 3 different institutions (1 for discovery, 2 for independent validation), from patients who later underwent radical prostatectomy. Surrogate ground truth for disease extent on MRI was established by expert annotation of pre-operative MRI through spatial correlation with corresponding ex vivo whole-mount histology sections. Classifier accuracy in detecting PCa extent on MRI on a per-voxel basis was evaluated via area under the ROC curve. RESULTS: The boosted DT classifier yielded the highest cross-validated AUC (= 0.744) for detecting PCa in the discovery cohort. However, in independent validation, the boosted QDA classifier was identified as the most accurate and robust for voxel-wise detection of PCa extent (AUCs of 0.735, 0.683, 0.768 across the 3 sites). The next most accurate and robust classifier was the single QDA classifier, which also enjoyed the advantage of significantly lower computation times compared to any of the other methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our results therefore suggest that simpler classifiers (such as QDA and its ensemble variants) may be more robust, accurate, and efficient for prostate cancer CAD problems, especially in the context of multi-site validation.