Published April 2021 | Version v1
Journal article

How can we combat multicenter variability in MR radiomics? Validation of a correction procedure

  • 1. Université Côte d'Azur, Inria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Epione Project Team, 2004 route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902, Sophia Antipolis Cedex (France)
  • 2. Laboratoire d'Imagerie Translationnelle en Oncologie (LITO), Inserm, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Université Paris-Saclay, Bât 101B, rue Henri Becquerel, 91401, Orsay (France)
  • 3. Department of Neuroradiology, Fondation Ophtalmologique A. Rothschild, 29 rue Manin, 75019, Paris (France)
  • 4. Centre Imagerie Médicale Paris 13, 17 avenue d'Italie, 75013, Paris (France)

Description

Test a practical realignment approach to compensate the technical variability of MR radiomic features. T1 phantom images acquired on 2 scanners, FLAIR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CE-T1w) images of 18 brain tumor patients scanned on both 1.5-T and 3-T scanners, and 36 T2-weighted (T2w) images of prostate cancer patients scanned in one of two centers were investigated. The ComBat procedure was used for harmonizing radiomic features. Differences in statistical distributions in feature values between 1.5- and 3-T images were tested before and after harmonization. The prostate studies were used to determine the impact of harmonization to distinguish between Gleason grades (GGs). In the phantom data, 40 out of 42 radiomic feature values were significantly different between the 2 scanners before harmonization and none after. In white matter regions, the statistical distributions of features were significantly different (p < 0.05) between the 1.5- and 3-T images for 37 out of 42 features in both FLAIR and CE-T1w images. After harmonization, no statistically significant differences were observed. In brain tumors, 41 (FLAIR) or 36 (CE-T1w) out of 42 features were significantly different between the 1.5- and 3-T images without harmonization, against 1 (FLAIR) or none (CE-T1w) with harmonization. In prostate studies, 636 radiomic features were significantly different between GGs after harmonization against 461 before. The ability to distinguish between GGs using radiomic features was increased after harmonization. ComBat harmonization efficiently removes inter-center technical inconsistencies in radiomic feature values and increases the sensitivity of studies using data from several scanners.

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
European Radiology
Journal Volume
31
Journal Issue
4
Journal Page Range
p. 2272-2280
ISSN
0938-7994
CODEN
EURAE3