data_sheet_2_Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review.xlsx

Background<p>Radiomics has been widely investigated for non-invasive acquisition of quantitative textural information from anatomic structures. While the vast majority of radiomic analysis is performed on images obtained from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics has generated increased attention. In head and neck cancer (HNC), however, attempts to perform consistent investigations are sparse, and it is unclear whether the resulting textural features can be reproduced. To address this unmet need, we systematically reviewed the quality of existing MRI radiomics research in HNC.</p>Methods<p>Literature search was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases were examined from January 1990 through November 2017 for common radiomic keywords. Eligible completed studies were then scored using a standardized checklist that we developed from Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research guidelines for reporting machine-learning predictive model specifications and results in biomedical research, defined by Luo et al. (1). Descriptive statistics of checklist scores were populated, and a subgroup analysis of methodology items alone was conducted in comparison to overall scores.</p>Results<p>Sixteen completed studies and four ongoing trials were selected for inclusion. Of the completed studies, the nasopharynx was the most common site of study (37.5%). MRI modalities varied with only four of the completed studies (25%) extracting radiomic features from a single sequence. Study sample sizes ranged between 13 and 118 patients (median of 40), and final radiomic signatures ranged from 2 to 279 features. Analyzed endpoints included either segmentation or histopathological classification parameters (44%) or prognostic and predictive biomarkers (56%). Liu et al. (2) addressed the highest number of our checklist items (total score: 48), and a subgroup analysis of methodology checklist items alone did not demonstrate any difference in scoring trends between studies [Spearman’s ρ = 0.94 (p < 0.0001)].</p>Conclusion<p>Although MRI radiomic applications demonstrate predictive potential in analyzing diverse HNC outcomes, methodological variances preclude accurate and collective interpretation of data.</p

data_sheet_3_Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review.xlsx

Background<p>Radiomics has been widely investigated for non-invasive acquisition of quantitative textural information from anatomic structures. While the vast majority of radiomic analysis is performed on images obtained from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics has generated increased attention. In head and neck cancer (HNC), however, attempts to perform consistent investigations are sparse, and it is unclear whether the resulting textural features can be reproduced. To address this unmet need, we systematically reviewed the quality of existing MRI radiomics research in HNC.</p>Methods<p>Literature search was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases were examined from January 1990 through November 2017 for common radiomic keywords. Eligible completed studies were then scored using a standardized checklist that we developed from Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research guidelines for reporting machine-learning predictive model specifications and results in biomedical research, defined by Luo et al. (1). Descriptive statistics of checklist scores were populated, and a subgroup analysis of methodology items alone was conducted in comparison to overall scores.</p>Results<p>Sixteen completed studies and four ongoing trials were selected for inclusion. Of the completed studies, the nasopharynx was the most common site of study (37.5%). MRI modalities varied with only four of the completed studies (25%) extracting radiomic features from a single sequence. Study sample sizes ranged between 13 and 118 patients (median of 40), and final radiomic signatures ranged from 2 to 279 features. Analyzed endpoints included either segmentation or histopathological classification parameters (44%) or prognostic and predictive biomarkers (56%). Liu et al. (2) addressed the highest number of our checklist items (total score: 48), and a subgroup analysis of methodology checklist items alone did not demonstrate any difference in scoring trends between studies [Spearman’s ρ = 0.94 (p < 0.0001)].</p>Conclusion<p>Although MRI radiomic applications demonstrate predictive potential in analyzing diverse HNC outcomes, methodological variances preclude accurate and collective interpretation of data.</p

data_sheet_1_Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review.xlsx

Background<p>Radiomics has been widely investigated for non-invasive acquisition of quantitative textural information from anatomic structures. While the vast majority of radiomic analysis is performed on images obtained from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics has generated increased attention. In head and neck cancer (HNC), however, attempts to perform consistent investigations are sparse, and it is unclear whether the resulting textural features can be reproduced. To address this unmet need, we systematically reviewed the quality of existing MRI radiomics research in HNC.</p>Methods<p>Literature search was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases were examined from January 1990 through November 2017 for common radiomic keywords. Eligible completed studies were then scored using a standardized checklist that we developed from Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research guidelines for reporting machine-learning predictive model specifications and results in biomedical research, defined by Luo et al. (1). Descriptive statistics of checklist scores were populated, and a subgroup analysis of methodology items alone was conducted in comparison to overall scores.</p>Results<p>Sixteen completed studies and four ongoing trials were selected for inclusion. Of the completed studies, the nasopharynx was the most common site of study (37.5%). MRI modalities varied with only four of the completed studies (25%) extracting radiomic features from a single sequence. Study sample sizes ranged between 13 and 118 patients (median of 40), and final radiomic signatures ranged from 2 to 279 features. Analyzed endpoints included either segmentation or histopathological classification parameters (44%) or prognostic and predictive biomarkers (56%). Liu et al. (2) addressed the highest number of our checklist items (total score: 48), and a subgroup analysis of methodology checklist items alone did not demonstrate any difference in scoring trends between studies [Spearman’s ρ = 0.94 (p < 0.0001)].</p>Conclusion<p>Although MRI radiomic applications demonstrate predictive potential in analyzing diverse HNC outcomes, methodological variances preclude accurate and collective interpretation of data.</p

data_sheet_4_Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review.xlsx

Background<p>Radiomics has been widely investigated for non-invasive acquisition of quantitative textural information from anatomic structures. While the vast majority of radiomic analysis is performed on images obtained from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics has generated increased attention. In head and neck cancer (HNC), however, attempts to perform consistent investigations are sparse, and it is unclear whether the resulting textural features can be reproduced. To address this unmet need, we systematically reviewed the quality of existing MRI radiomics research in HNC.</p>Methods<p>Literature search was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases were examined from January 1990 through November 2017 for common radiomic keywords. Eligible completed studies were then scored using a standardized checklist that we developed from Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research guidelines for reporting machine-learning predictive model specifications and results in biomedical research, defined by Luo et al. (1). Descriptive statistics of checklist scores were populated, and a subgroup analysis of methodology items alone was conducted in comparison to overall scores.</p>Results<p>Sixteen completed studies and four ongoing trials were selected for inclusion. Of the completed studies, the nasopharynx was the most common site of study (37.5%). MRI modalities varied with only four of the completed studies (25%) extracting radiomic features from a single sequence. Study sample sizes ranged between 13 and 118 patients (median of 40), and final radiomic signatures ranged from 2 to 279 features. Analyzed endpoints included either segmentation or histopathological classification parameters (44%) or prognostic and predictive biomarkers (56%). Liu et al. (2) addressed the highest number of our checklist items (total score: 48), and a subgroup analysis of methodology checklist items alone did not demonstrate any difference in scoring trends between studies [Spearman’s ρ = 0.94 (p < 0.0001)].</p>Conclusion<p>Although MRI radiomic applications demonstrate predictive potential in analyzing diverse HNC outcomes, methodological variances preclude accurate and collective interpretation of data.</p

DataSheet_1_Deep-learning-based generation of synthetic 6-minute MRI from 2-minute MRI for use in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.pdf

BackgroundQuick magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with low contrast-to-noise ratio are typically acquired for daily MRI-guided radiotherapy setup. However, for patients with head and neck (HN) cancer, these images are often insufficient for discriminating target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). In this study, we investigated a deep learning (DL) approach to generate high-quality synthetic images from low-quality images.MethodsWe used 108 unique HN image sets of paired 2-minute T2-weighted scans (2mMRI) and 6-minute T2-weighted scans (6mMRI). 90 image sets (~20,000 slices) were used to train a 2-dimensional generative adversarial DL model that utilized 2mMRI as input and 6mMRI as output. Eighteen image sets were used to test model performance. Similarity metrics, including the mean squared error (MSE), structural similarity index (SSIM), and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) were calculated between normalized synthetic 6mMRI and ground-truth 6mMRI for all test cases. In addition, a previously trained OAR DL auto-segmentation model was used to segment the right parotid gland, left parotid gland, and mandible on all test case images. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) were calculated between 2mMRI and either ground-truth 6mMRI or synthetic 6mMRI for each OAR; two one-sided t-tests were applied between the ground-truth and synthetic 6mMRI to determine equivalence. Finally, a visual Turing test using paired ground-truth and synthetic 6mMRI was performed using three clinician observers; the percentage of images that were correctly identified was compared to random chance using proportion equivalence tests.ResultsThe median similarity metrics across the whole images were 0.19, 0.93, and 33.14 for MSE, SSIM, and PSNR, respectively. The median of DSCs comparing ground-truth vs. synthetic 6mMRI auto-segmented OARs were 0.86 vs. 0.85, 0.84 vs. 0.84, and 0.82 vs. 0.85 for the right parotid gland, left parotid gland, and mandible, respectively (equivalence pConclusionsUsing 2mMRI inputs, we demonstrate that DL-generated synthetic 6mMRI outputs have high similarity to ground-truth 6mMRI, but further improvements can be made. Our study facilitates the clinical incorporation of synthetic MRI in MRI-guided radiotherapy.</p