SPIE Journal Paper | 29 April 2021
João Santinha, Celso Matos, Mario Figueiredo, Nikolaos Papanikolaou
KEYWORDS: Data modeling, Performance modeling, Data centers, Statistical modeling, Feature selection, Feature extraction, Tumors, Image segmentation, Magnetic resonance imaging, Scanners
Purpose: Radiogenomics offers a potential virtual and noninvasive biopsy. However, radiogenomics models often suffer from generalizability issues, which cause a performance degradation on unseen data. In MRI, differences in the sequence parameters, manufacturers, and scanners make this generalizability issue worse. Such image acquisition information may be used to define different environments and select robust and invariant radiomic features associated with the clinical outcome that should be included in radiomics/radiogenomics models.
Approach: We assessed 77 low-grade gliomas and glioblastomas multiform patients publicly available in TCGA and TCIA. Radiomics features were extracted from multiparametric MRI images (T1-weighted, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) and different regions-of-interest (enhancing tumor, nonenhancing tumor/necrosis, and edema). A method developed to find variables that are part of causal structures was used for feature selection and compared with an embedded feature selection approach commonly used in radiomics/radiogenomics studies, across two different scenarios: (1) leaving data from a center as an independent held-out test set and tuning the model with the data from the remaining centers and (2) use stratified partitioning to obtain the training and the held-out test sets.
Results: In scenario (1), the performance of the proposed methodology and the traditional embedded method was AUC: 0.75 [0.25; 1.00] versus 0.83 [0.50; 1.00], Sens.: 0.67 [0.20; 0.93] versus 0.67 [0.20; 0.93], Spec.: 0.75 [0.30; 0.95] versus 0.75 [0.30; 0.95], and MCC: 0.42 [0.19; 0.68] versus 0.42 [0.19; 0.68] for center 1 as the held-out test set. The performance of both methods for center 2 as the held-out test set was AUC: 0.64 [0.36; 0.91] versus 0.55 [0.27; 0.82], Sens.: 0.00 [0.00; 0.73] versus 0.00 [0.00; 0.73], Spec.: 0.82 [0.52; 0.94] versus 0.91 [0.62; 0.98], and MCC: −0.13 [ − 0.38 ; − 0.04 ] versus −0.09 [ − 0.38 ; − 0.02 ] , whereas for center 3 was AUC: 0.80 [0.62; 0.95] versus 0.89 [0.56; 0.96], Sens.: 0.86 [0.48; 0.97] versus 0.86 [0.48; 0.97], Spec.: 0.72 [0.54; 0.85] versus 0.79 [0.61; 0.90], and MCC: 0.47 [0.41; 0.53] versus 0.55 [0.48; 0.60]. For center 4, the performance of both methods was AUC: 0.77 [0.51; 1.00] versus 0.75 [0.47; 0.97], Sens.: 0.53 [0.30; 0.75] versus 0.00 [0.00; 0.15], Spec.: 0.71 [0.35; 0.91] versus 0.86 [0.48; 0.97], and MCC: 0.23 [0.16; 0.31] versus. −0.32 [ − 0.46 ; − 0.20 ] . In scenario (2), the performance of these methods was AUC: 0.89 [0.71; 1.00] versus 0.79 [0.58; 0.94], Sens.: 0.86 [0.80; 0.92] versus 0.43 [0.15; 0.74], Spec.: 0.87 [0.62; 0.96] versus 0.87 [0.62; 0.96], and MCC: 0.70 [0.60; 0.77] versus 0.33 [0.24; 0.42].
Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study demonstrated good performance by the proposed feature selection method in the majority of the studied scenarios, as it promotes robustness of features included in the models and the models’ generalizability by making used imaging data of different scanners or with sequence parameters.
