Abstract
Purpose:
Radiomic texture features derived from the oncologic PET have recently been brought under intense investigation within the context of patient stratification and treatment outcome prediction in a variety of cancer types; however, their validity has not yet been examined. This work is aimed to validate radiomic PET texture metrics through the use of realistic simulations in the ground truth setting.
Methods:
Simulation of FDG-PET was conducted by applying the Zubal phantom as an attenuation map to the SimSET software package that employs Monte Carlo techniques to model the physical process of emission imaging. A total of 15 irregularly-shaped lesions featuring heterogeneous activity distribution were simulated. For each simulated lesion, 28 texture features in relation to the intensity histograms (GLIH), grey-level co-occurrence matrices (GLCOM), neighborhood difference matrices (GLNDM), and zone size matrices (GLZSM) were evaluated and compared with their respective values extracted from the ground truth activity map.
Results:
In reference to the values from the ground truth images, texture parameters appearing on the simulated data varied with a range of 0.73–3026.2% for GLIH-based, 0.02–100.1% for GLCOM-based, 1.11–173.8% for GLNDM-based, and 0.35–66.3% for GLZSM-based. For majority of the examined texture metrics (16/28), their values on the simulated data differed significantly from those from the ground truth images (P-value ranges from <0.0001 to 0.04). Features not exhibiting significant difference comprised of GLIH-based standard deviation, GLCO-based energy and entropy, GLND-based coarseness and contrast, and GLZS-based low gray-level zone emphasis, high gray-level zone emphasis, short zone low gray-level emphasis, long zone low gray-level emphasis, long zone high gray-level emphasis, and zone size nonuniformity.
Conclusion:
The extent to which PET imaging disturbs texture appearance is feature-dependent and could be substantial. It is thus advised that use of PET texture parameters for predictive and prognostic measurements in oncologic setting awaits further systematic and critical evaluation.
