Advertisement

Lung

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Advances in Imaging and Automated Quantification of Malignant Pulmonary Diseases: A State-of-the-Art Review

  • Bruno Hochhegger
  • Matheus Zanon
  • Stephan Altmayer
  • Gabriel S. Pacini
  • Fernanda Balbinot
  • Martina Z. Francisco
  • Ruhana Dalla Costa
  • Guilherme Watte
  • Marcel Koenigkam Santos
  • Marcelo C. Barros
  • Diana Penha
  • Klaus Irion
  • Edson Marchiori
LUNG CANCER

Abstract

Quantitative imaging in lung cancer is a rapidly evolving modality in radiology that is changing clinical practice from a qualitative analysis of imaging features to a more dynamic, spatial, and phenotypical characterization of suspected lesions. Some quantitative parameters, such as the use of 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived standard uptake values (SUV), have already been incorporated into current practice as it provides important information for diagnosis, staging, and treatment response of patients with lung cancer. A growing body of evidence is emerging to support the use of quantitative parameters from other modalities. CT-derived volumetric assessment, CT and MRI lung perfusion scans, and diffusion-weighted MRI are some of the examples. Software-assisted technologies are the future of quantitative analyses in order to decrease intra- and inter-observer variability. In the era of “big data”, widespread incorporation of radiomics (extracting quantitative information from medical images by converting them into minable high-dimensional data) will allow medical imaging to surpass its current status quo and provide more accurate histological correlations and prognostic value in lung cancer. This is a comprehensive review of some of the quantitative image methods and computer-aided systems to the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with lung cancer.

Keywords

Lung cancer Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Positron emission tomography 

Abbreviations

18F-FDG PET/CT

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

CAD

Computer-aided diagnosis

CT

Computed tomography

DCE

Dynamic contrast-enhanced

DTP

Dual time point imaging technique

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

LSR

Lesion-to-spinal cord ratio

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MRI-SI

Magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity

MVD

Microvessel density

NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer

RECIST

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

ROI

Regions of interest

SI

Signal intensity

SUV

Standardized uptake value

VDT

Volume doubling time

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. Hans Ulrich Kauczor for his scientific contribution to improve this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    McMahon PM, Kong CY, Johnson BE et al (2008) Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study. Radiology 248:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harders SW, Balyasnikowa S, Fischer BM (2014) Functional imaging in lung cancer. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 34:340–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA (2011) Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med 32:605–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yankeelov TE, Mankoff DA, Schwartz LH et al (2016) Quantitative imaging in cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 22(2):284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UyBico SJ, Wu CC, Suh RD et al (2010) Lung cancer staging essentials: the new TNM staging system and potential imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 30:1163–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern BS, Schiepers C, Weber WA et al (2005) Presurgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer: positron emission tomography, integrated positron emission tomography/CT, and software image fusion. Chest 128:2289–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henzler T, Schmid-Bindert G, Schoenberg SO et al (2010) Diffusion and perfusion MRI of the lung and mediastinum. Eur J Radiol 76:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matoba M, Tonami H, Kondou T et al (2007) Lung carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging—preliminary evaluation with apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 243:570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    García-Figueiras R, Goh VJ, Padhani AR et al (2013) CT perfusion in oncologic imaging: a useful tool? Am J Roentgenol 200:8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA et al (2014) Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol 15:1332–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM et al (2017) Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology 284(1):228–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galizia M, Töre H, Chalian H et al (2011) Evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma size using two-dimensional and volumetric analysis. Acad Radiol 14:1555–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S et al (2007) Automated CT volumetry of pulmonary metastases: the effect of a reduced growth threshold and target lesion number on the reliability of therapy response assessment using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 17:2561–2571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vogel M, Schmücker S, Maksimovic O et al (2012) Reduction in growth threshold for pulmonary metastases: an opportunity for volumetry and its impact on treatment decisions. Br J Radiol 85:959–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dicken V, Bornemann L, Moltz JH et al (2015) Comparison of volumetric and linear serial CT assessments of lung metastases in renal cell carcinoma patients in a clinical phase IIB study. Acad Radiol 22:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bankier AA, MacMahon H, Goo JM et al (2017) Recommendations for measuring pulmonary nodules at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 285:584–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yousaf-Khan U, van der Aalst C, de Jong PA et al (2017) Final screening round of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial: the effect of a 2.5-year screening interval. Thorax 72(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Hoop B, Gietema H, van Ginneken B et al (2009) A comparison of six software packages for evaluation of solid lung nodules using semiautomated volumetry: what is the minimum increase in size to detect growth in repeated CT examinations. Eur Radiol 19:800–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao YR, van Ooijen PM, Dorrius MD et al (2014) Comparison of three software systems for semi-automatic volumetry of pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT examinations. Acta Radiol 55:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S et al (2016) Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolten R, Oyen WJG et al (2015) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Markovina S, Duan F, Snyder BS et al (2015) Regional lymph node uptake of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose after definitive chemoradiation therapy predicts local-regional failure of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paesmans M, Garcia C, Wong CO et al (2015) Primary tumour standardised uptake value is prognostic in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multivariate pooled analysis of individual data. Eur Respir J 46:1751–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ohja B et al (2005) The maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of a non-small cell lung cancer predict stage, recurrence, and survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nahmias C, Hanna WT, Wahl LM et al (2007) Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 48:744–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gupta NC, Tamim WJ, Graeber GG et al (2001) Mediastinal lymph node sampling following positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in lung cancer staging. Chest 120:521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roberts PF, Follette DM, von Haag D et al (2000) Factors associated with false-positive staging of lung cancer by positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1154–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nakayama M, Okizaki A, Ishitoya S et al (2013) Dual-time-point F-18 FDG PET/CT imaging for differentiating the lymph nodes between malignant lymphoma and benign lesions. Ann Nucl Med 27:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar R, Loving VA, Chauhan A et al (2005) Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 46:1819–1824PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sathekge MM, Maes A, Pottel H et al (2010) Dual time-point FDG PET-CT for differentiating benign from malignant solitary pulmonary nodules in a TB endemic area. S Afr Med J 100:598–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaneko K, Sadashima E, Irie K et al (2013) Assessment of FDG retention differences between the FDG-avid benign pulmonary lesion and primary lung cancer using dual-time-point FDG-PET imaging. Ann Nucl Med 27:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saleh Farghaly HR, Mohamed Sayed MH, Nasr HA et al (2015) Dual time point fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in differentiation between malignant and benign lesions in cancer patients. Does it always work? Indian J Nucl Med 30:314–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong CS, Gong N, Chu YC et al (2012) Correlation of measurements from diffusion weighted MR imaging and FDG PET/CT in GIST patients: ADC versus SUV. Eur J Radiol 81:2122–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Usaro A, Ruokonen E, Takala J (1995) Estimation of splanchnic blood flow by the Fick principle in man and problems in the use of indocyanine green. Cardiovasc Res 30:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bevilacqua A, Barone D, Malavasi S et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of effects of motion compensation for liver and lung tumors in CT perfusion. Acad Radiol 21:1416–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li Y, Yang ZG, Chen TW et al (2008) Peripheral lung carcinoma: correlation of angiogenesis and first-pass perfusion parameters of 64-detector row CT. Lung Cancer 61:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ma SH, Le HB, Jia BH et al (2008) Peripheral pulmonary nodules: relationship between multi-slice spiral CT perfusion imaging and tumor angiogenesis and VEGF expression. BMC Cancer 8:186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ma S-H, Le H-B, Jia B et al (2008) Peripheral pulmonary nodules: relationship between multi-slice spiral CT perfusion imaging and tumor angiogenesis and VEGF expression. BMC Cancer 8:186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang J, Wu N, Cham MD et al (2009) Tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: perfusion CT evaluation of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1090–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huellner MW, Collen TD, Gut P et al (2014) Multiparametric PET/CT-perfusion does not add significant additional information for initial staging in lung cancer compared with standard PET/CT. EJNMMI Res 4:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mirsadraee S, van Beek EJR (2015) Functional imaging: computed tomography and MRI. Clin Chest Med 36:349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Connor JP, Tofts PS, Miles KA et al (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging techniques: CT and MRI. Br J Radiol 84:S112–S120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Petralia G, Preda L, D’Andrea G et al (2010) CT perfusion in solid-body tumours. Part I: technical issues. Radiol Med 115:843–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li Y, Yang Z-G, Chen T-W, Yu J-Q, Sun J-Y, Chen H-J (2010) First-pass perfusion imaging of solitary pulmonary nodules with 64-detector row CT: comparison of perfusion parameters of malignant and benign lesions. Br J Radiol 83(993):785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yuan X, Zhang J, Quan C et al (2013) Differentiation of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules with first-pass dual-input perfusion CT. Eur Radiol 23(9):2469–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ohno Y, Koyama H, Matsumoto K et al (2011) Differentiation of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules with quantitative first-pass 320-detector row perfusion CT versus FDG PET/CT. Radiology 258(2):599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jiang B, Liu H, Zhou D (2016) Diagnostic and clinical utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in indeterminate pulmonary nodules: a metaanalysis. Clin Imaging 40:1219–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cheng JC, Yuan A, Chen JH et al (2013) Early detection of Lewis lung carcinoma tumor control by irradiation using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. PLoS ONE 8:e62762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Koenigkam-Santos M, Optazaite E, Sommer G et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of pulmonary lesions: description of a technique aiming clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 84:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schaefer JF, Vollmar J, Schick F et al (2004) Solitary pulmonary nodules: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–perfusion differences in malignant and benign lesions. Radiology 232:544–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bell LC, Wang K, Munoz Del Rio A et al (2015) Comparison of models and contrast agents for improved signal and signal linearity in dynamic contrast-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 50:174–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ohba Y, Nomori H, Mori T et al (2009) Is diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging superior to positron emission tomography with fludeoxyglucose F 18 in imaging non-small cell lung cancer? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li B, Li Q, Chen C et al (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of malignant pulmonary nodules and masses. Acad Radiol 21:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wu LM, Xu JR, Hua J et al (2013) Can diffusion-weighted imaging be used as a reliable sequence in the detection of malignant pulmonary nodules and masses? Magn Reson Imaging 31:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Usuda K, Zhao XT, Sagawa M et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging is superior to positron emission tomography in the detection and nodal assessment of lung cancers. Ann Thorac Surg 91:1689–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Regier M, Derlin T, Schwarz D et al (2012) Diffusion weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): does the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) correlate with tracer uptake (SUV)? Eur J Radiol 81:2913–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pauls S, Schmidt SA, Juchems MS et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in comparison to integrated [18F]-FDG PET/CT for N-staging in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Radiol 81:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Henz-Concatto N, Watte G, Marchiori E et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging of pulmonary nodules: accuracy in a granulomatous disease-endemic region. Eur Radiol 26:2915–2920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hochhegger B, Marchiori E, dos Reis DQ et al (2012) Chemical-shift MRI of pulmonary hamartomas: initial experience using a modified technique to assess nodule fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W331–W334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gillies R, Kinahan P, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Doi K (2007) Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:400665Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ganeshan B, Panayiotou E, Burnand K et al (2012) Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur Radiol 22:796–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fried DV, Tucker SL, Zhou S et al (2014) Prognostic value and reproducibility of pretreatment CT texture features in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 90:834–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yoon HJ, Sohn I, Cho JH et al (2015) Decoding tumor phenotypes for ALK, ROS1, and RET fusions in lung adenocarcinoma using a radiomics approach. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ferreira-Junior JR, Koenigkam-Santos M, Cipriano FEG et al (2018) Radiomics-based features for pattern recognition of lung cancer histopathology and metastases. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 159:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Yang J, Zhang L, Fave X (2016) Uncertainty analysis of quantitative imaging features extracted from contrast-enhanced CT in lung tumors. Comput Med Imaging Graph 48:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guo Z, Shu Y, Zhou H et al (2015) Radiogenomics helps to achieve personalized therapy by evaluating patient responses to radiation treatment. Carcinogenesis 36:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rizzo S, Petrella F, Buscarino V et al (2016) CT radiogenomic characterization of EGFR, K-RAS, and ALK mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Radiol 26:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yamamoto S, Korn RL, Oklu R et al (2014) ALK molecular phenotype in non-small cell lung cancer: CT radiogenomic characterization. Radiology 272:568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Hochhegger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matheus Zanon
    • 3
  • Stephan Altmayer
    • 3
  • Gabriel S. Pacini
    • 3
  • Fernanda Balbinot
    • 3
  • Martina Z. Francisco
    • 4
  • Ruhana Dalla Costa
    • 4
  • Guilherme Watte
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marcel Koenigkam Santos
    • 5
  • Marcelo C. Barros
    • 4
  • Diana Penha
    • 6
  • Klaus Irion
    • 7
  • Edson Marchiori
    • 8
  1. 1.LABIMED – Medical Imaging Research Lab, Department of Radiology, Pavilhão, Pereira Filho HospitalIrmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Department of ImagingPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Medical Imaging Research LaboratoryFederal University of Health Sciences of Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyIrmandade da Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.Ribeirao Preto Medical SchoolRibeirão PretoBrazil
  6. 6.RadiologyLiverpool Heart and Chest HospitalLiverpoolUK
  7. 7.Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
  8. 8.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio De JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations