Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 Jun 14;7(1):3519.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02425-5.

Associations between radiologist-defined semantic and automatically computed radiomic features in non-small cell lung cancer

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Associations between radiologist-defined semantic and automatically computed radiomic features in non-small cell lung cancer

Stephen S F Yip et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Tumor phenotypes captured in computed tomography (CT) images can be described qualitatively and quantitatively using radiologist-defined "semantic" and computer-derived "radiomic" features, respectively. While both types of features have shown to be promising predictors of prognosis, the association between these groups of features remains unclear. We investigated the associations between semantic and radiomic features in CT images of 258 non-small cell lung adenocarcinomas. The tumor imaging phenotypes were described using 9 qualitative semantic features that were scored by radiologists, and 57 quantitative radiomic features that were automatically calculated using mathematical algorithms. Of the 9 semantic features, 3 were rated on a binary scale (cavitation, air bronchogram, and calcification) and 6 were rated on a categorical scale (texture, border definition, contour, lobulation, spiculation, and concavity). 32-41 radiomic features were associated with the binary semantic features (AUC = 0.56-0.76). The relationship between all radiomic features and the categorical semantic features ranged from weak to moderate (|Spearmen's correlation| = 0.002-0.65). There are associations between semantic and radiomic features, however the associations were not strong despite being significant. Our results indicate that radiomic features may capture distinct tumor phenotypes that fail to be perceived by naked eye that semantic features do not describe and vice versa.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Association between the binary semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with the area under the ROC curve (AUC). *Indicates a significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). “Rand.” = random association (AUC = 0.50). “Prop.” and “Inv. Prop.” indicate direct and inverse proportionality, respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tumors with and without cavitation. (a) Tumor without cavitation (b) Tumor with minor Cavitation (c) Tumor with major Cavitation. The arrow indicates the location of the tumor.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Associations between the binary semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with the area under the ROC curve (AUC). *Indicates a significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). “Rand.” = random association (AUC = 0.50). “Prop.” And “Inv. Prop.” indicate direct and inverse proportionality, respectively. Wv = Wavelet. LoG = Laplacian of Gaussian.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Association between the six categorical semantic and ten unfiltered radiomic features assessed with Spearman coefficient correlation. *Indicates that the association was significant (q-value ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Associations between the categorical semantic and unfiltered radiomic features assessed with Spearman coefficient correlation. *Indicates a statistically significant association (q-value ≤ 0.05). Wv = Wavelet. LoG = Laplacian of Gaussian.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Tumors with different border definitions. (a) Tumor with a well-defined border (score = 1). (b) Tumor with neither a well- or poorly-defined border (score = 2). (c) Tumor with a poorly-defined border (score = 3). The arrow indicates the location of the tumor.

References

    1. Gould MK, et al. Evaluation of Individuals With Pulmonary Nodules: When Is It Lung Cancer?: Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:e93S–e120S. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2351. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hicks RJ, Lau E, Alam NZ, Chen RY. Imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Respirology. 2007;12:165–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2006.01012.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Torre LA, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2015;65:87–108. - PubMed
    1. Hensing, T., Chawla, A., Batra, R. & Salgia, R. In Systems Analysis of Human Multigene Disorders (eds Natalia Maltsev, Andrey Rzhetsky & T. Conrad Gilliam) 85–117 (Springer New York, 2014). - PubMed
    1. Wang H, et al. Semiquantitative Computed Tomography Characteristics for Lung Adenocarcinoma and Their Association With Lung Cancer Survival. Clinical Lung Cancer. 2015;16:e141–e163. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2015.05.007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms