Cargando…

Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the rep...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alic, Lejla, Niessen, Wiro J., Veenland, Jifke F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25330171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110300
_version_ 1782340430926446592
author Alic, Lejla
Niessen, Wiro J.
Veenland, Jifke F.
author_facet Alic, Lejla
Niessen, Wiro J.
Veenland, Jifke F.
author_sort Alic, Lejla
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the reported performance of the described methods and identifies barriers to their implementation in clinical practice. METHODOLOGY: The Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 20 September 2013. Heterogeneity analysis methods were classified into four categories, i.e., non-spatial methods (NSM), spatial grey level methods (SGLM), fractal analysis (FA) methods, and filters and transforms (F&T). The performance of the different methods was compared. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 7351 potentially relevant publications, 209 were included. Of these studies, 58% reported the use of NSM, 49% SGLM, 10% FA, and 28% F&T. Differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading and/or outcome prediction was the goal in 87% of the studies. Overall, the reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.87). No relation was found between the performance and the quantification methods used, or between the performance and the imaging modality. A negative correlation was found between the tumor-feature ratio and the AUC, which is presumably caused by overfitting in small datasets. Cross-validation was reported in 63% of the classification studies. Retrospective analyses were conducted in 57% of the studies without a clear description. CONCLUSIONS: In a research setting, heterogeneity quantification methods can differentiate between tumor types, grade tumors, and predict outcome and monitor treatment effects. To translate these methods to clinical practice, more prospective studies are required that use external datasets for validation: these datasets should be made available to the community to facilitate the development of new and improved methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4203782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42037822014-10-27 Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review Alic, Lejla Niessen, Wiro J. Veenland, Jifke F. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the reported performance of the described methods and identifies barriers to their implementation in clinical practice. METHODOLOGY: The Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 20 September 2013. Heterogeneity analysis methods were classified into four categories, i.e., non-spatial methods (NSM), spatial grey level methods (SGLM), fractal analysis (FA) methods, and filters and transforms (F&T). The performance of the different methods was compared. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 7351 potentially relevant publications, 209 were included. Of these studies, 58% reported the use of NSM, 49% SGLM, 10% FA, and 28% F&T. Differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading and/or outcome prediction was the goal in 87% of the studies. Overall, the reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.87). No relation was found between the performance and the quantification methods used, or between the performance and the imaging modality. A negative correlation was found between the tumor-feature ratio and the AUC, which is presumably caused by overfitting in small datasets. Cross-validation was reported in 63% of the classification studies. Retrospective analyses were conducted in 57% of the studies without a clear description. CONCLUSIONS: In a research setting, heterogeneity quantification methods can differentiate between tumor types, grade tumors, and predict outcome and monitor treatment effects. To translate these methods to clinical practice, more prospective studies are required that use external datasets for validation: these datasets should be made available to the community to facilitate the development of new and improved methods. Public Library of Science 2014-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4203782/ /pubmed/25330171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110300 Text en © 2014 Alic et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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 properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Alic, Lejla
Niessen, Wiro J.
Veenland, Jifke F.
Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title_full Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title_short Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
title_sort quantification of heterogeneity as a biomarker in tumor imaging: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25330171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110300
work_keys_str_mv AT aliclejla quantificationofheterogeneityasabiomarkerintumorimagingasystematicreview
AT niessenwiroj quantificationofheterogeneityasabiomarkerintumorimagingasystematicreview
AT veenlandjifkef quantificationofheterogeneityasabiomarkerintumorimagingasystematicreview