MR Intensity Normalization Methods Impact Sequence Specific Radiomics Prognostic Model Performance in Primary and Recurrent High-Grade Glioma

SIMPLE SUMMARY: As magnetic resonance (MR) intensities are acquired in arbitrary units, scans from different scanners are not directly comparable; thus, intensity normalization is essential. In this study, we assess the impact of normalization methods on prognostic radiomics models in primary and recurrent high-grade glioma on different MR sequences. Furthermore, we present a methodology that allows for the handling of radiomics performance discrepancy due to MR intensity normalization. ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study investigates the impact of different intensity normalization (IN) methods on the overall survival (OS) radiomics models’ performance of MR sequences in primary (pHGG) and recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG). Methods: MR scans acquired before radiotherapy were retrieved from two independent cohorts (rHGG C1: 197, pHGG C2: 141) from multiple scanners (15, 14). The sequences are T1 weighted (w), contrast-enhanced T1w (T1wce), T2w, and T2w-FLAIR. Sequence-specific significant features (SF) associated with OS, extracted from the tumour volume, were derived after applying 15 different IN methods. Survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazard (CPH) and Poisson regression (POI) models. A ranking score was assigned based on the 10-fold cross-validated (CV) concordance index (C-I), mean square error (MSE), and the Akaike information criterion (AICs), to evaluate the methods’ performance. Results: Scatter plots of the 10-CV C-I and MSE against the AIC showed an impact on the survival predictions between the IN methods and MR sequences (C1/C2 C-I range: 0.62–0.71/0.61–0.72, MSE range: 0.20–0.42/0.13–0.22). White stripe showed stable results for T1wce (C1/C2 C-I: 0.71/0.65, MSE: 0.21/0.14). Combat (0.68/0.62, 0.22/0.15) and histogram matching (HM, 0.67/0.64, 0.22/0.15) showed consistent prediction results for T2w models. They were also the top-performing methods for T1w in C2 (Combat: 0.67, 0.13; HM: 0.67, 0.13); however, only HM achieved high predictions in C1 (0.66, 0.22). After eliminating IN impacted SF using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient, a mean decrease in the C-I and MSE of 0.05 and 0.03 was observed in all four sequences. Conclusion: The IN method impacted the predictive power of survival models; thus, performance is sequence-dependent.