Discovery of stable and prognostic CT-based radiomic features independent of contrast administration and dimensionality in oesophageal cancer

Abstract

The aim of this work was to investigate radiomic analysis of contrast and non-contrast enhanced planning CT images of oesophageal cancer (OC) patients in terms of stability, dimensionality and contrast agent dependency. The prognostic significance of CT-based radiomic features was also evaluated. Different 2D and 3D radiomic features were extracted from contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of 213 patients from the multi-centre SCOPE1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) in OC. Feature stability was evaluated by randomly dividing patients into three groups and identifying textures with similar distributions among groups with a Kruskal-Wallis analysis. A paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess for significant differences in the remaining corresponding 2D and 3D stable features. A prognostic model was constructed using clinical characteristics and remaining filtered features. The discriminative ability of significant variables was tested using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A total of 238 2D and 3D radiomic features were computed from oesophageal CT images. More than 75 features were stable if extracted from homogeneous cohort (contrast or non-contrast enhanced CT images) and inhomogeneous cohort (contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images). Among the remaining corresponding stable features computed from both cohorts, only 4 features did not show a statistically significant difference if obtained in 2D or in 3D (p-value < 0.05). A Cox regression model constructed using 5 clinical variables (age, sex, tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) stage, WHO performance status and contrast administration) and 4 radiomic variables (inverse varianceGLCM, large distance emphasisGLDZM, zone distance non uniformity normGLDZM, zone distance varianceGLDZM), identified one radiomic feature (zone distance varianceGLDZM) that was significantly associated with overall survival (p-value = 0.032, HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02–1.52). A significant difference in overall survival between groups was found when considering a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM equals to 1.70 (X2 = 7.692, df = 1, p-value = 0.006). Zone distance varianceGLDZM was identified as the only stable CT radiomic feature statistically correlated with overall survival, independent of dimensionality and contrast administration. This feature was able to identify high-risk patients and if validated, could be the subject of a future clinical trial aiming to improve clinical decision making and personalise OC treatment.

About the Authors:

Concetta Piazzese

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3605-1809

Kieran Foley

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Philip Whybra

Roles Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Chris Hurt

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Tom Crosby

Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Emiliano Spezi

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-8813

Abstract

The aim of this work was to investigate radiomic analysis of contrast and non-contrast enhanced planning CT images of oesophageal cancer (OC) patients in terms of stability, dimensionality and contrast agent dependency. The prognostic significance of CT-based radiomic features was also evaluated. Different 2D and 3D radiomic features were extracted from contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of 213 patients from the multi-centre SCOPE1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) in OC. Feature stability was evaluated by randomly dividing patients into three groups and identifying textures with similar distributions among groups with a Kruskal-Wallis analysis. A paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess for significant differences in the remaining corresponding 2D and 3D stable features. A prognostic model was constructed using clinical characteristics and remaining filtered features. The discriminative ability of significant variables was tested using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A total of 238 2D and 3D radiomic features were computed from oesophageal CT images. More than 75 features were stable if extracted from homogeneous cohort (contrast or non-contrast enhanced CT images) and inhomogeneous cohort (contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images). Among the remaining corresponding stable features computed from both cohorts, only 4 features did not show a statistically significant difference if obtained in 2D or in 3D (p-value < 0.05). A Cox regression model constructed using 5 clinical variables (age, sex, tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) stage, WHO performance status and contrast administration) and 4 radiomic variables (inverse varianceGLCM, large distance emphasisGLDZM, zone distance non uniformity normGLDZM, zone distance varianceGLDZM), identified one radiomic feature (zone distance varianceGLDZM) that was significantly associated with overall survival (p-value = 0.032, HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02–1.52). A significant difference in overall survival between groups was found when considering a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM equals to 1.70 (X2 = 7.692, df = 1, p-value = 0.006). Zone distance varianceGLDZM was identified as the only stable CT radiomic feature statistically correlated with overall survival, independent of dimensionality and contrast administration. This feature was able to identify high-risk patients and if validated, could be the subject of a future clinical trial aiming to improve clinical decision making and personalise OC treatment.

Figures

Fig 4

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Table 3

Fig 4

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 1

Citation: Piazzese C, Foley K, Whybra P, Hurt C, Crosby T, Spezi E (2019) Discovery of stable and prognostic CT-based radiomic features independent of contrast administration and dimensionality in oesophageal cancer. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0225550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550

Editor: Jason Chia-Hsun Hsieh, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, TAIWAN

Received: May 30, 2019; Accepted: November 6, 2019; Published: November 22, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Piazzese et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The relevant data required to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript (CT Raw Data) are restricted by the Research Ethics Committee for Wales. Publishing individual patient data would not be compliant with General Data Protection Regulation as they would be potentially identifiable. We had patient consent to use the data for research within the SCOPE1 research team at Cardiff University. We do not have patient consent for wider dissemination of patient data. To access the CT Raw Data, please contact Prof Richard Adams Cardiff University Cancer Trials Unit ([email protected]).

Funding: This work was funded by Velindre NHS Trust Charitable funds project number 2017/12 to ES.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: CRT, Chemo-radiotherapy; IBSI, Image biomarker standardisation initiative; GLCM, Grey level co-occurrence matrix; GLDZM, Grey level distance zone matrix; GLRL, Grey level run length matrix; GLSZM, Grey level size zone matrix; GTV, Gross tumour volume; ICC, Intraclass correlation coefficient; I.V., Intravenous; NGTDM, Neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix; OC, Oesophageal cancer; OS, Overall survival; RCT, Randomised controlled trial; TNM, tumour, node and metastasis

1. Introduction

Oesophageal cancer (OC) is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide with a 5-year overall survival rate between 15% and 25% [1]. If patients are deemed to have potentially curable disease, a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery is used, depending on their tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) stage, physiological fitness and personal choice[2, 3]. Despite these treatment options, many patients still have a poor prognosis, suggesting that current treatment efficacy is suboptimal and clinical decision making can be improved to better select which treatment to use for each patient.

Radiological staging largely informs the likely patient prognosis [4], so techniques that identify prognostic imaging biomarkers from staging investigations may therefore improve subsequent clinical treatment decisions. A non-invasive approach could assist the risk-stratification of patients with OC, by identifying groups of patients that may respond to treatment, or those that are likely to suffer side-effects but with little benefit to prognosis.

Radiomics is a new field that has gained increasing attention in recent years [5]. A large number of quantitative features can be extracted from medical images, including parameters not appreciated by simple visual analysis, which could improve the prediction of patient outcomes [6]. Radiomics have been investigated in OC [7, 8]and could be used to inform future decision support systems [9].

Several studies have focussed on evaluating sensitivity, repeatability and reproducibility of radiomics features from different imaging modalities and anatomical regions [10, 11, 12, 13]. The prognostic and predictive value of CT-based radiomics have previously been evaluated in OC. In the work of Ganeshan et al. [14], the prognostic value of texture analysis was assessed in non-contrast enhanced CT images, whereas contrast enhanced CT images were used to predict response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in Hou et al. [15] and Nakajo et al. [16]. However, common limitations of currently published works are the often small sample sizes used to perform radiomic analyses and the lack of stability testing of image features across heterogenous datasets.

A common example of variation in a radiological dataset is the presence or absence of intravenous (I.V.) contrast in CT examinations. Ideally, staging CT examinations should be performed with I.V. contrast to improve detection of the tumour, lymph nodes and metastases, and to aid treatment planning. However, some patients are unable to have I.V. contrast due to poor renal function or allergy [17]. Administration of I.V. contrast is often desired in clinical trials although not a pre-requisite for inclusion. Radiomic features that are stable across contrast versus non-contrast enhanced CT images and 2-dimensional (2D) versus 3-dimensional (3D) images would overcome this limitation and increase their application across multiple datasets.

Accordingly, the first aim of this study was to evaluate the stability, dimensionality and contrast agent dependency of radiomic features extracted from contrasted and non-contrast CT examinations of patients with OC, acquired during the multi-centre SCOPE1 randomised controlled trial (RCT). The second aim of the work was to evaluate the prognostic significance of discovered stable radiomic features as potential future imaging biomarkers in personalised OC staging.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Population and CT imaging

This study retrospectively included a cohort of 213 patients (with radiotherapy planning CT) recruited into the SCOPE1 trial [18], a National Cancer Research Institute and Cancer Research UK funded Phase II/III two arm clinical trial investigating definitive CRT with and without cetuximab in OC. The SCOPE1 trial (EUDRACT 2006-002241-37; ISRCTN 4771849) was ethically approved by the Research Ethics Committee for Wales on 17/04/2007. The trial was performed in accordance with the study protocol and monitored by the trial management group. All patients recruited to SCOPE1 provided written informed consent prior to randomisation and treatment initiation. Patients included in the trial were also informed of the strict confidentiality of their data and the possible review and use by authorised individuals other than their treating physician [19]. Detailed baseline characteristics of subjects enrolled in this study are presented in Table 1.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the clinical cohort.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.t001

Patients underwent CT scan examination in different hospitals in UK. Oesophageal contrast-enhanced and non-contrast enhanced CT data were obtained using different scanners (Siemens, GE medical systems, Philips) and the following acquisition parameters: 120 kV; 20–641 mAs; reconstruction diameter, 361–700; matrix, 512 × 512; pixel spacing, 0.71–1.37 mm; slice thickness, 2.5–5 mm; time between injection and CT, 35-40s.

On each 2D axial CT image, the gross tumour volume (GTV) was manually outlined following the SCOPE1 protocol by an expert oncologist. The CERR software package [20] was used to process and import the CT images and radiotherapy volumes. The cohort was stratified into groups of patients with contrasted (n = 138) and non-contrasted CT (n = 75).

2.2. Radiomic features extraction

Using an in-house developed data analytics software [21], radiomic features were automatically calculated in compliance with the Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) [22], an international collaboration aiming to standardise radiomic information extracted from medical images in order to perform high-throughput quantitative image analysis. Before extracting the features, CT images were isotropically resampled to 2 mm resolution in all three directions using linear interpolation. The list of extracted second-order and high-order texture features included: grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), grey level run length matrix (GLRL), grey level size zone matrix (GLSZM), grey level distance zone matrix (GLDZM), neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix (NGTDM). Second-order and high-order features were obtained considering one segment layer at a time (2D) or considering the whole tumour volume (3D). Furthermore, GLCM and GLRLM values were calculated by considering two types of aggregation methods. Texture features were obtained “without merging” when considering each 2D directional matrix and averaging over 2D directions and slices, or when considering each 3D directional matrix and averaging over the 3D directions. Features were calculated “with merging” when the radiomic value was calculated from a single matrix after merging all 2D directional matrices or when considering a single matrix after merging all 3D directional matrices. The list of radiomic features extracted for each oesophageal tumour is summarized in Table 2.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Radiomic features extracted from contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images.

GLCM, grey level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, grey level run length matrix; GLSZM, grey level size zone matrix; GLDZM, grey level distance zone matrix; NGTDM, neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.t002

2.3. Radiomic features selection and stability comparison

To investigate the possible impact of contrast agents on texture-based features extracted from CT images of OC, three different groups of patients were analysed: “mixed group” with contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT scans (n = 213), “contrast group” cohort with CT images acquired with I.V. contrast (n = 138) and “non-contrast group” with CT images acquired without I.V. contrast (n = 75). Each group was used as input in the workflow depicted in Fig 1. Three sub-groups were created by randomly dividing the clinical cohort of patients using the function “randi” of Matlab (Matlab 2017b; Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) that generates uniformly distributed random integers in a specified interval. From each sub-group, features were extracted in 2D, in 3D, with and without merging. Features with similar distributions among sets were identified as stable using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Features with different distributions were identified as unstable and excluded from further analysis. The remaining corresponding 2D and 3D stable features within each group were compared to assess for significant differences with the paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Kruskal-Wallis and paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed using Matlab. For both tests, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Workflow used for selecting stable radiomic features.

The workflow was repeated three times using three different groups (a “mixed group” with contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images, a “contrast group” with contrast enhanced CT images and a “non-contrast group” with non-contrast enhanced CT images) as input data. The input group was divided in three sub-groups (n = 71 for the mixed group, n = 46 for the contrast group and n = 25 for the non-contrast group) and processed to extract the features. Stable features, identified as the ones with similar distributions among the sub- groups, were further analysed. Feature with different distributions among sub-group (identified as unstable) were not further investigated.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.g001

For each group, stable features that showed no difference if obtained considering one segment layer at a time in 2D or the whole tumour layers in 3D were grouped and evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Features resembling each other (ICC > 0.90) were removed.

Remaining radiomic features were further investigated to evaluate their potential prognostic value. A Cox regression model was constructed using 5 clinical variables (age, sex, TNM stage, WHO performance status and contrast administration) and stable radiomic features. The Cox regression was computed with a backward conditional method, which has previously been recommended [23] and used in published studies [8]. Survival comparison was performed with the Kaplan-Meier life-table method. In particular, the independent cohort of patients enrolled in this study was divided into three groups equally populated by using prognostic variables obtained from the Cox regression model. A log-rank test evaluated significant differences in overall survival (OS). Differences with a p value of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Survival analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics version 23.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

A total of 238 2D and 3D radiomic features were extracted from the CT images of the oesophagus. Fig 2 shows both stable and unstable radiomic features extracted from the three groups. The majority of the features were stable in the three sub- groups. Conversely, unstable features were identified with the Kruskal-Wallis test in the mixed group (n = 82), contrast group (n = 3) and non-contrast group (n = 6), respectively, and excluded from further analysis.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Stable and unstable radiomic features extracted from the three groups.

GLCM, grey level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, grey level run length matrix; GLSZM, grey level size zone matrix; GLDZM, grey level distance zone matrix; NGTDM, neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix; *, feature computed with merging.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.g002

As shown in Fig 3, 2D features proved to be more stable then 3D features on contrast-enhanced and non-contrast enhanced CT images of patients with OC.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Stability of the radiomic features for the three groups assessed.

Features were divided in 2D or in 3D.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.g003

Table 3 summarizes the results obtained after comparing the corresponding 2D and 3D stable features with the paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Among the 76 remaining corresponding stable features in the mixed group, only 6 features did not show a statistically significant difference if obtained in 2D or in 3D. For the contrast group, 15 stable features were not statistically different if extracted in 2D or 3D. The greatest number of stable features (n = 17) that were independent if computed slice-by-slice or from a volume was found in the non-contrast group. Four independent features (inverse varianceGLCM, large distance emphasisGLDZM, zone distance non uniformity normGLDZM, zone distance varianceGLDZM) were stable across dimensionality and contrast administration in the three groups considered. Among them, inverse varianceGLCM was the only feature that also showed to be independent from the type of aggregation methods used. Comparison of the inverse varianceGLCM obtained with merging and without merging showed a high correlation (ICC > 0.98). Due to this result, the two features were clustered and inverse varianceGLCM obtained without merging was used as leader of the set in the following analysis.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. List of stable radiomic features not statistically different if extracted using one segment layer at a time or considering the whole tumour volume in CT images of the oesophagus.

In bold, common features among three cohorts considered that showed to be stable and dimensionality and contrast agent independent. GLCM, grey level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, grey level run length matrix; GLSZM, grey level size zone matrix; GLDZM, grey level distance zone matrix; NGTDM, neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix; *, feature computed with merging.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.t003

The Cox regression model was constructed using 5 clinical variables (age, sex, TNM stage, WHO performance status and contrast) and 4 radiomic variables (inverse varianceGLCM, large distance emphasisGLDZM, zone distance non uniformity normGLDZM, zone distance varianceGLDZM). At the final step of the prognostic model, two variables were found significantly associated with overall survival: TNM stage (p-value = 0.017, HR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07–2.05) and zone distance varianceGLDZM (p-value = 0.032, HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02–1.52). Since TNM stage is already known as a prognostic marker in oesophageal cancer8, only the prognostic significance of zone distance varianceGLDZM was explored further.

Zone distance varianceGLDZM was found to be correlated with an increased chance of mortality and was used as a prognostic score to separate patients into three groups each populated with 71 subjects. The score ranges used for separating the cohort were the following: for group 1, labelled as low-risk group, from 0.15 to 0.85, for group 2, labelled as intermediate-risk group, from 0.86 to 1.69 and for group 3, labelled as high-risk group, from 1.70 to 6.2. The median OS of each low, intermediate and high-risk group was 688 days (95% CI 597.4–773.4), 554 days (95% CI 532.9–700.9), 436.5 days (95% CI 427–580.9), respectively. The log-rank test determined a significant difference (X2 = 7.767, df = 2, p-value = 0.021) as shown in Fig 4A.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 4. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of the cohort used in this work.

Patients divided in a) low-risk group (zone distance varianceGLDZM from 0.15 to 0.85), intermediate-risk group (zone distance varianceGLDZM from 0.86 to 1.69) and high-risk group (zone distance varianceGLDZM from 1.70 to 6.2) based on the prognostic score and b) group 1 (zone distance varianceGLDZM < 1.70) and group 2 (zone distance varianceGLDZM = > 1.70) considering a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM. There was a significant difference in OS when dividing in low, intermediate and high-risk group (X2 = 7.37, df = 1, p-value = 0.007) or when using a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM (X2 = 7.692, df = 1, p-value = 0.006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.g004

The significant difference (X2 = 7.692, df = 1, p-value = 0.006) also persisted when merging the low and the intermediate groups. Fig 4B shows the risk stratification when dividing the cohort of patients in two groups by considering a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM equal to 1.70.

4. Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the potential additional value derived from radiomic features extracted from contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of a RCT in the development of a new prognostic model in OC. In particular, we investigated: 1) the relationship between CT textures and the administration of I.V. contrast; 2) stability of CT features analysis when computed in 2D or from a 3D volume in homogeneous and inhomogeneous OC cohorts; and 3) the prognostic value of stable CT features in current OC staging systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to develop a prognostic model with stable and dimensionality-independent features using clinical RCT trial data of contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of OC patients.

Our analysis showed a statistical dependency of radiomics features extracted from CT scans on I.V. contrast medium. As expected, radiomic features are more stable if extracted from homogeneous cohorts. Furthermore, our study showed that most of the stable features extracted from CT images acquired after the administration of I.V. contrast are also stable when obtained from cohort of patients scanned without I.V. contrast. This is in line with the recent work of Badic et al. [24], in which the link between features extracted from contrast enhanced and non-contrast enhanced CT images of primary colorectal cancer of 61 patients was investigated. However, a comparison with our findings was not possible because even though a large number of metrics were computed (first-order, second-order and third-order), no GLDZM-based texture analysis was performed.

We also further investigated differences when radiomic features are extracted in 2D or in 3D. In line with the work of Shen et al. [25], our results have shown that 2D features performed slightly better than the corresponding 3D ones in the three cohorts considered. In particular, no 2D features were unstable when CT images were acquired with I.V. contrast and only one was found unstable in the non-contrast group. In general, the number of unstable 3D features was slightly higher than the number of unstable 2D features. This could be explained by different voxel sizes of the CT images acquired in this multi-centre study (axial resolution range: 0.71–1.37 mm; slice thickness range: 2.5–5 mm). The dependency of radiomic features on CT voxel size has already been investigated in several studies [26, 27]. However, the production of scans reconstructed to different voxel resolution is frequent in multi-centre trials and even the implementation of an image resampling method before radiomic feature extraction may not warrant the complete removal of voxel size dependency. In fact, Mackin et al. [28] showed that image resampling alone tends to increase the variability of radiomics features extracted from CT images of lung cancer patients. They also suggested that the variability can be reduced with a harmonization the pixel size based on scan resampling in the time domain and a Butterworth low-pass filtering in the frequency domain.

In general, 2D features extracted from CT images of OC patients performed slightly better than 3D ones when evaluated in terms of stability, dimensionality and I.V. contrast dependency. Although, 3D features might carry more information and allow to perform a whole tumour analysis [29], they are affected by the slice thickness of the imaging data [30] that is typically higher than the in-plane resolution [31]. However, based on the results of this study we cannot recommend 2D over 3D features for clinical research and radiomics studies. Future investigations should consider including the stable features identified in this work. The list of stable features is reported in S1 Table.

Analysis of dimensionality and contrast-independent stable features with the Cox regression method identified zone distance varianceGLDZM as the only radiomic feature statistically correlated with OS. GLDZM evaluates the relation between grey levels and location by counting the number of groups (or zones) of voxels with a specific discretised grey level value and the same distance to the edge of the ROI considered. In particular, zone distance varianceGLDZM estimates the variance in zone counts for the different zone distances which provides a quantitative characterization of tumour heterogeneity. This is known to correlate with poor prognosis [32]. In agreement with the model, zone distance varianceGLDZM is significantly associated with overall survival. Patients with increased zone distance varianceGLDZM have a higher hazard ratio and a therefore shorter life expectancy. In particular, we have identified a high-risk group above a threshold 1.7 for zone distance varianceGLDZM. This result confirms the potential prognostic value of textural features measuring tumour heterogeneity as already shown by different radiomic studies in esophageal [33], lungs [34], head and neck cancer [35]. This imaging biomarker needs to be tested in a validation dataset to prove its prognostic value.

This study has some limitations. Although the great strength of the study is that the data was obtained from multiple centres in the context of a randomised control trial, validation of the model constructed using stable features was not performed. According to the TRIPOD scheme, this study can be classified as a type 1 study in which the development of a prediction model and the predictive performance are evaluated using the same data. The dataset used in this work was not split in training and validation set to power the prognostic model appropriately by reducing as much as possible the rate of false positives (type-I error) and by improving the ability to detect a true difference between groups (type-II error) [36]. This ensure a high stability of the model and its transferability and applicability to a wider oesophageal cancer population independent to contrast administration. Second, the robustness of the extracted radiomic features in terms of reproducibility and repeatability in contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of OC patients could not be investigated because of the design of the RCT. Future work will address these limitations by externally validating the prognostic model and by evaluating the robustness of radiomic features obtained from CT images in different multi-centre datasets.

5. Conclusion

We investigated the stability, dimensionality and contrast agent dependency of radiomic features extracted from contrasted and non-contrast CT examinations of patients with OC, acquired during the multi-centre SCOPE1 RCT. Zone distance varianceGLDZM was identified as the only stable CT radiomic feature statistically correlated with overall survival, independent of dimensionality and contrast administration. This feature was able to identify high-risk patients and if validated, could be the subject of a future clinical trial aiming to improve clinical decision making and personalise OC treatment.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 Table. List of 2D and 3D radiomic features that showed to be stable when extracted from the mixed, the contrast and the non-contrast group.

GLCM, grey level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, grey level run length matrix; GLSZM, grey level size zone matrix; GLDZM, grey level distance zone matrix; NGTDM, neighbourhood grey tone difference matrix; *, feature computed with merging.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Rhys Carrington for providing the baseline characteristics of the clinical cohort.

Citation: Piazzese C, Foley K, Whybra P, Hurt C, Crosby T, Spezi E (2019) Discovery of stable and prognostic CT-based radiomic features independent of contrast administration and dimensionality in oesophageal cancer. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0225550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225550

References

1. Pennathur A, Gibson M, Jobe B, Luketich J. Oesophageal carcinoma. The Lancet. 2013 Feb 2;381(9864):400–12.

2. Allum WH, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Cunningham D, Jankowski JA, Wong R. Guidelines for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Gut. 2011 Nov 1;60(11):1449–72. pmid:21705456

3. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, Van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, Henegouwen MV, Wijnhoven BP et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074–84. pmid:22646630

4. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Ferguson MK, Blackstone EH, Goldstraw P. Cancer of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction: An Eighth Edition Staging Primer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2017 Jan 1;12(1):36–42. pmid:27810391

5. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology. 2015 Nov 18;278(2):563–77. pmid:26579733

6. 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. European journal of cancer. 2012 Mar 1;48(4):441–6. pmid:22257792

7. van Rossum PS, Xu C, Fried DV, Goense L, Lin SH. The emerging field of radiomics in esophageal cancer: current evidence and future potential. Translational cancer research. 2016 Aug;5(4):410. pmid:30687593

8. Foley KG, Hills RK, Berthon B, Marshall C, Parkinson C, Lewis WG et al. Development and validation of a prognostic model incorporating texture analysis derived from standardised segmentation of PET in patients with oesophageal cancer. European radiology. 2018 Jan 1;28(1):428–36. pmid:28770406

9. Lambin P, Zindler J, Vanneste BG, Van De Voorde L, Eekers D, Compter I et al. Decision support systems for personalized and participative radiation oncology. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2017 Jan 15;109:131–53. pmid:26774327

10. Pavic M, Bogowicz M, Würms X, Glatz S, Finazzi T, Riesterer O et al. Influence of inter-observer delineation variability on radiomics stability in different tumor sites. Acta Oncologica. 2018 Aug 3;57(8):1070–4. pmid:29513054

11. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Qi J, Xie C, Lu L et al. Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Scientific reports. 2016 Mar 24;6:23428. pmid:27009765

12. van Velden FH, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ et al. Repeatability of radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [18F] FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Molecular imaging and biology. 2016 Oct 1;18(5):788–95. pmid:26920355

13. Traverso A, Wee L, Dekker A, Gillies R. Repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features: A systematic review. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):1143–58.

14. Ganeshan B, Skogen K, Pressney I, Coutroubis D, Miles K. Tumour heterogeneity in oesophageal cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: preliminary evidence of an association with tumour metabolism, stage, and survival. Clinical radiology. 2012 Feb 1;67(2):157–64. pmid:21943720

15. Hou Z, Ren W, Li S, Liu J, Sun Y, Yan et al. Radiomic analysis in contrast-enhanced CT: predict treatment response to chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 28;8(61):104444. pmid:29262652

16. Nakajo M, Jinguji M, Nakabeppu Y, Nakajo M, Higashi R, Fukukura Y et al. Texture analysis of 18 F-FDG PET/CT to predict tumour response and prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2017 Feb 1;44(2):206–14. pmid:27613542

17. Singh J, Daftary A. Iodinated contrast media and their adverse reactions. Journal of nuclear medicine technology. 2008 Jun 1;36(2):69–74. pmid:18483141

18. Hurt CN, Nixon LS, Griffiths GO, Al-Mokhtar R, Gollins S, Staffurth JN et al. SCOPE1: a randomised phase II/III multicentre clinical trial of definitive chemoradiation, with or without cetuximab, in carcinoma of the oesophagus. BMC cancer. 2011 Dec;11(1):466.

19. Crosby T, Hurt CN, Falk S, Gollins S, Staffurth J, Ray et al. Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCOPE-1: a phase II/III randomized trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy +/- cetuximab in oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2017 Mar 14;116(6):709–716. pmid:28196063

20. Deasy JO, Blanco AI, Clark VH. CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research. Medical physics. 2003 May 1;30(5):979–85. pmid:12773007

21. Gwynne S, Spezi E, Wills L, Nixon L, Hurt C, Joseph G et al. Toward semi-automated assessment of target volume delineation in radiotherapy trials: the SCOPE 1 pretrial test case. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2012 Nov 15;84(4):1037–42.

22. Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, Löck S. Image biomarker standardisation initiative-feature definitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07003. 2016 Dec 21.

23. Mantel N. Why stepdown procedures in variable selection. Technometrics. 1970 Aug 1;12(3):621–5.

24. Badic B, Desseroit MC, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Potential Complementary Value of Noncontrast and Contrast Enhanced CT Radiomics in Colorectal Cancers. Academic radiology. 2019 Apr 1;26(4):469–79. pmid:30072293

25. Shen C, Liu Z, Guan M, Song J, Lian Y, Wang S et al. 2D and 3D CT radiomics features prognostic performance comparison in non-small cell lung cancer. Translational oncology. 2017 Dec 1;10(6):886–94. pmid:28930698

26. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Schwartz LH, Lu L. Exploring variability in CT characterization of tumors: a preliminary phantom study. Translational oncology. 2014 Feb 1;7(1):88–93. pmid:24772211

27. Larue RT, van Timmeren JE, de Jong EE, Feliciani G, Leijenaar RT, Schreurs WM et al. Influence of gray level discretization on radiomic feature stability for different CT scanners, tube currents and slice thicknesses: a comprehensive phantom study. Acta oncologica. 2017 Nov 2;56(11):1544–53. pmid:28885084

28. Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L, Yang J, Jones AK, Ng CS et al. Harmonizing the pixel size in retrospective computed tomography radiomics studies. PloS one. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0178524. pmid:28934225

29. Ng F, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Goh V. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis?. European journal of radiology. 2013 Feb 1;82(2):342–8. pmid:23194641

30. Shafiq‐ul‐Hassan M, Zhang GG, Latifi K, Ullah G, Hunt DC, Balagurunathan Y et al. Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels. Medical physics. 2017 Mar 1;44(3):1050–62. pmid:28112418

31. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Wang L, Ginsberg MS, Cooper CA et al. Pulmonary metastases: effect of CT section thickness on measurement—initial experience. Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):934–9. pmid:15681690

32. Thawani R, McLane M, Beig N, Ghose S, Prasanna P, Velcheti V et al. Radiomics and radiogenomics in lung cancer: a review for the clinician. Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan 1;115:34–41. pmid:29290259

33. Yip C, Davnall F, Kozarski R, Landau DB, Cook GJ, Ross et al. Assessment of changes in tumor heterogeneity following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary esophageal cancer. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2015 Mar 1;28(2):172–9. pmid:24460831

34. 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. Journal of nuclear medicine. 2013;54(1):19–26. pmid:23204495

35. Bogowicz M, Riesterer O, Stark LS, Studer G, Unkelbach J, Guckenberger M et al. Comparison of PET and CT radiomics for prediction of local tumor control in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Acta oncologica. 2017 Nov 2;56(11):1531–6. pmid:28820287

36. 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(suppl 5):e0124165.