Design and evaluation of a modular multimodality imaging phantom to simulate heterogeneous uptake and enhancement patterns for radiomic quantification in hybrid imaging: A feasibility study

Medical Physics, vol. 49, pp. 3093–3106

Abstract

Abstract Background Accuracy and precision assessment in radiomic features is important for the determination of their potential to characterize cancer lesions. In this regard, simulation of different imaging conditions using specialized phantoms is increasingly being investigated. In this study, the design and evaluation of a modular multimodality imaging phantom to simulate heterogeneous uptake and enhancement patterns for radiomics quantification in hybrid imaging is presented. Methods A modular multimodality imaging phantom was constructed that could simulate different patterns of heterogeneous uptake and enhancement patterns in positron emission tomography (PET), single‐photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. The phantom was designed to be used as an insert in the standard NEMA‐NU2 IEC body phantom casing. The entire phantom insert is composed of three segments, each containing three separately fillable compartments. The fillable compartments between segments had different sizes in order to simulate heterogeneous patterns at different spatial scales. The compartments were separately filled with different ratios of 99mTc‐pertechnetate, 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG), iodine‐ and gadolinium‐based contrast agents for SPECT, PET, CT, and T1‐weighted MR imaging respectively. Image acquisition was performed using standard oncological protocols on all modalities and repeated five times for repeatability assessment. A total of 93 radiomic features were calculated. Variability was assessed by determining the coefficient of quartile variation (CQV) of the features. Comparison of feature repeatability at different modalities and spatial scales was performed using Kruskal‐Wallis‐, Mann‐Whitney U‐, one‐way ANOVA‐ and independent t‐tests. Results Heterogeneous uptake and enhancement could be simulated on all four imaging modalities. Radiomic features in SPECT were significantly less stable than in all other modalities. Features in PET were significantly less stable than in MR and CT. A total of 20 features, particularly in the gray‐level co‐occurrence matrix (GLCM) and gray‐level run‐length matrix (GLRLM) class, were found to be relatively stable in all four modalities for all three spatial scales of heterogeneous patterns (with CQV < 10%). Conclusion The phantom was suitable for simulating heterogeneous uptake and enhancement patterns in [18F]FDG‐PET, 99mTc‐SPECT, CT, and T1‐weighted MR images. The results of this work indicate that the phantom might be useful for the further development and optimization of imaging protocols for radiomic quantification in hybrid imaging modalities.

Authors 11

1. Gijsbert M. Kalisvaart corresponding Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

2. Floris H. P. van Velden Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

3. Irene Hernandez Giron Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

4. Karin M. Meijer Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

5. Laura Ghesquière‐Diérickx Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   German Cancer Research Center · Leiden University Medical Center · Delft University of Technology

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering Delft University of Technology Delft The Netherlands

   Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

6. Wyger M. Brink Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

7. ANDREW G. WEBB Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

8. Lioe‐Fee de Geus‐Oei Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University Medical Center · University of Twente

   Affiliation as printed

   Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group University of Twente Enschede The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

   Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

9. Cornelis Herman Slump

   University of Twente

   Affiliation as printed

   Robotics and Mechatronics University of Twente Enschede The Netherlands

   Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

10. Dennis R. Schaart

    Holland Particle Therapy Center · Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Holland Proton Therapy Center Delft The Netherlands

    Radiation Science and Technology Delft University of Technology Delft The Netherlands

    Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands

    Radiation Science and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

11. Willem Grootjans Aachen Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center

    Leiden University Medical Center

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Radiology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

    Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands