• Tabassum D.P.
• Polyak K.

Tumorigenesis: it takes a village.

Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2015; 15: 473-483

• Hiley C.T.
• Swanton C.

Spatial and temporal cancer evolution: causes and consequences of tumour diversity.

Clin. Med. 2014; 14: s33-s37

• Hiley C.
• et al.

Deciphering intratumor heterogeneity and temporal acquisition of driver events to refine precision medicine.

Genome Biol. 2014; 15: 453

Spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment.

Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2016; 6a026583

• Bedard P.L.
• et al.

Tumour heterogeneity in the clinic.

Nature. 2013; 501: 355-364

• McGranahan N.
• Swanton C.

Biological and therapeutic impact of intratumor heterogeneity in cancer evolution.

Cancer Cell. 2015; 27: 15-26

• Rybinski B.
• Yun K.

Addressing intra-tumoral heterogeneity and therapy resistance.

Oncotarget. 2016; 7: 72322-72342

• Leelatian N.
• et al.

Preparing viable single cells from human tissue and tumors for cytomic analysis.

Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 2017; 118: 25C.1.1-25C.1.23

• Padula M.P.
• et al.

A comprehensive guide for performing sample preparation and top-down protein analysis.

Proteomes. 2017; 5: 1-31

• Capriotti A.L.
• et al.

Recent applications of magnetic solid-phase extraction for sample preparation.

Chromatographia. 2019; 82: 1251-1274

• Hosic S.
• et al.

Microfluidic sample preparation for single cell analysis.

Anal. Chem. 2016; 88: 354-380

• Heather J.M.
• Chain B.

The sequence of sequencers: the history of sequencing DNA.

Genomics. 2016; 107: 1-8

• Amarasinghe S.L.
• et al.

Opportunities and challenges in long-read sequencing data analysis.

Genome Biol. 2020; 21: 30

• Strom S.P.

Current practices and guidelines for clinical next-generation sequencing oncology testing.

Cancer Biol. Med. 2016; 13: 3-11

Next-generation sequencing and its clinical application.

Cancer Biol. Med. 2019; 16: 4-10

• Timp W.
• Timp G.

Beyond mass spectrometry, the next step in proteomics.

Sci. Adv. 2020; 6: 1-17

• Duong V.A.
• et al.

Review of three-dimensional liquid chromatography platforms for bottom-up proteomics.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 23: 1524

• Russ IV, C.W.
• et al.

Why use signal-to-noise as a measure of MS Performance when it is often meaningless?.

Curr. Topics Mass Spectrom. 2011; 9: 28-33

• Stoeckli M.
• et al.

Imaging mass spectrometry: a new technology for the analysis of protein expression in mammalian tissues.

Nat. Med. 2001; 7: 493-496

• Yusko E.C.
• et al.

Real-time shape approximation and fingerprinting of single proteins using a nanopore.

Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017; 12: 360-367

• Chang Q.
• Hedley D.

Emerging applications of flow cytometry in solid tumor biology.

Methods. 2012; 57: 359-367

• Grün D.
• van Oudenaarden A.

Design and analysis of single-cell sequencing experiments.

Cell. 2015; 163: 799-810

• Wyatt Shields IV, C.
• et al.

Microfluidic cell sorting: a review of the advances in the separation of cells from debulking to rare cell isolation.

Lab Chip. 2015; 15: 1230-1249

• Salafi T.
• et al.

A review on deterministic lateral displacement for particle separation and detection.

Nano-Micro Lett. 2019; 11: 77

• Punjiya M.
• et al.

A flow through device for simultaneous dielectrophoretic cell trapping and AC electroporation.

Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 1-11

• Saliba A.E.
• et al.

Microfluidic sorting and multimodal typing of cancer cells in self-assembled magnetic arrays.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010; 107: 14524-14529

• Augustsson P.
• et al.

Microfluidic, label-free enrichment of prostate cancer cells in blood based on acoustophoresis.

Anal. Chem. 2012; 84: 7954-7962

• Huang K-W.
• et al.

Microfluidic integrated optoelectronic tweezers for single-cell preparation and analysis.

Lab Chip. 2013; 13: 3721-3727

• Sanchez-Freire V.
• et al.

Microfluidic single cell real-time PCR for comparative analysis of gene expression patterns.

Nat. Protoc. 2012; 7: 829-838

• Macosko E.Z.
• et al.

Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets.

Cell. 2015; 161: 1202-1214

• Zheng G.X.Y.
• et al.

Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells.

Nat. Commun. 2017; 8: 14049

• Borgström E.
• et al.

Comparison of whole genome amplification techniques for human single cell exome sequencing.

PLoS ONE. 2017; 12e0171566

• Lawson D.A.
• et al.

Tumour heterogeneity and metastasis at single-cell resolution.

Nat. Cell Biol. 2018; 20: 1349-1360

• Stavrakis S.
• et al.

High-throughput microfluidic imaging flow cytometry.

Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2019; 55: 36-43

• Sohrabi S.
• et al.

Droplet microfluidics: fundamentals and its advanced applications.

RSC Adv. 2020; 10: 27560-27574

• Sarkar S.
• et al.

Dynamic analysis of immune and cancer cell interactions at single cell level in microfluidic droplets.

Biomicrofluidics. 2016; 10: 1-12

• Bandura D.R.
• et al.

Mass cytometry: technique for real time single cell multitarget immunoassay based on inductively coupled plasma time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Anal. Chem. 2009; 81: 6813-6822

• Wagner J.
• et al.

A single-cell atlas of the tumor and immune ecosystem of human breast cancer.

Cell. 2019; 177: 1330-1345

Fully cooked FISH.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007; 8: S6

• Chen K.H.
• et al.

Spatially resolved, highly multiplexed RNA profiling in single cells.

Science. 2015; 348: 1360-1363

• Geiss G.K.
• et al.

Direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2008; 26: 317-325

• Lee J.H.
• et al.

Highly multiplexed subcellular RNA sequencing in situ.

Science. 2014; 343: 1360-1363

• Payne A.C.
• et al.

In situ genome sequencing resolves DNA sequence and structure in intact biological samples.

Science. 2021; 371eaay3446

• Rodriques S.G.
• et al.

Slide-seq: a scalable technology for measuring genome-wide expression at high spatial resolution.

Science. 2019; 363: 1463-1467

• Saka S.K.
• et al.

Immuno-SABER enables highly multiplexed and amplified protein imaging in tissues.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2019; 37: 1080-1090

• Schürch C.M.
• et al.

Coordinated cellular neighborhoods orchestrate antitumoral immunity at the colorectal cancer invasive front.

Cell. 2020; 182: 1341-1359

• Giesen C.
• et al.

Highly multiplexed imaging of tumor tissues with subcellular resolution by mass cytometry.

Nat. Methods. 2014; 11: 417-422

• Angelo M.
• et al.

Multiplexed ion beam imaging of human breast tumors.

Nat. Med. 2014; 20: 436-442

• Espina V.
• et al.

Laser-capture microdissection.

Nat. Protoc. 2006; 1: 586-603

• Cheng L.
• et al.

Laser-assisted microdissection in translational research.

Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 2012; 21: 31-47

• Datta S.
• et al.

Laser capture microdissection: big data from small samples.

Histol. Histopathol. 2015; 30: 1255-1269

• Smith E.A.
• Hodges H.C.

The spatial and genomic hierarchy of tumor ecosystems revealed by single-cell technologies.

Trends Cancer. 2019; 5: 411-425

• Adey N.
• et al.

A mill based instrument and software system for dissecting slide-mounted tissue that provides digital guidance and documentation.

BMC Clin. Pathol. 2013; 13: 1-12

• Lovchik R.D.
• et al.

Micro-immunohistochemistry using a microfluidic probe.

Lab Chip. 2012; 12: 1040-1043

• Kashyap A.
• et al.

Quantitative microimmunohistochemistry for the grading of immunostains on tumour tissues.

Nat. Biomed. 2019; 3: 478-490

• Huber D.
• Kaigala G.V.

Rapid micro fluorescence in situ hybridization in tissue sections.

Biomicrofluidics. 2018; 12042212

• Voith von Voithenberg L.
• et al.

Spatially multiplexed RNA in situ hybridization to reveal tumor heterogeneity.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48e17

• Voith von Voithenberg L.
• et al.

Mapping spatial genetic landscapes in tissue sections through microscale integration of sampling methodology into genomic workflows.

Small. 2021; 17: 2007901

• van Kooten X.F.
• et al.

Spatially resolved genetic analysis of tissue sections enabled by microscale flow confinement retrieval and isotachophoretic purification.

Angew. Chem. 2019; 58: 15259-15262

• Kashyap A.
• et al.

Selective local lysis and sampling of live cells for nucleic acid analysis using a microfluidic probe.

Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 1-10

• Suetens P.

Fundamentals of Medical Imaging.

2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, 2009

• Sgouros G.
• et al.

Radiopharmaceutical therapy in cancer: clinical advances and challenges.

Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020; 19: 589-608

• Wallyn J.
• et al.

Biomedical imaging: principles, technologies, clinical aspects, contrast agents, limitations and future trends in nanomedicines.

Pharm. Res. 2019; 36: 78

• Frangioni J.V.

New technologies for human cancer imaging.

J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 26: 4012-4021

• Yankeelov T.E.
• et al.

Quantitative multimodality imaging in cancer research and therapy.

Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 11: 670-680

• Yankeelov T.
• Gore J.

Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: theory, data acquisition, analysis, and examples.

Curr. Med. Imaging Rev. 2007; 3: 91-107

• Tanay A.
• Regev A.

Scaling single-cell genomics from phenomenology to mechanism.

Nature. 2017; 541: 331-338

• Shi X.
• et al.

Unmasking tumor heterogeneity and clonal evolution by single-cell analysis.

J. Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2018; 4: 47

• Stuart T.
• Satija R.

Integrative single-cell analysis.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019; 20: 257-272

• Kishi J.Y.
• et al.

SABER enables amplified and multiplexed imaging of RNA and DNA in cells and tissues.

Nat. Methods. 2019; 16: 533-544

• Frei A.P.
• et al.

Highly multiplexed simultaneous detection of RNAs and proteins in single cells.

Nat. Methods. 2016; 13: 269-275

Single-cell metabolomics: analytical and biological perspectives.

Science. 2013; 342: 1243259

• Rappez L.
• et al.

SpaceM reveals metabolic states of single cells.

Nat. Methods. 2021; 18: 799-805

• Jørgensen J.T.
• Hersom M.

Clinical and regulatory aspects of companion diagnostic development in oncology.

Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018; 103: 999-1008

• Kaminski M.M.
• et al.

CRISPR-based diagnostics. Nat.

Biomed. Eng. 2021; 5: 643-656

• Ignatiadis M.
• et al.

Liquid biopsy enters the clinic — implementation issues and future challenges.

Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021; 18: 297-312

• Rizzo S.
• et al.

Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis.

Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2018; 2: 36

• Beer L.
• et al.

Ultrasound-guided targeted biopsies of CT-based radiomic tumour habitats: technical development and initial experience in metastatic ovarian cancer.

Eur. Radiol. 2021; 31: 3765-3772

• Jacquemet G.
• et al.

The cell biologist’s guide to super-resolution microscopy.

J. Cell Sci. 2020; 133jcs240713

• Nerreter T.
• et al.

Super-resolution microscopy reveals ultra-low CD19 expression on myeloma cells that triggers elimination by CD19 CAR-T.

Nat. Commun. 2019; 10: 3137

• Liu J.T.C.
• et al.

Harnessing non-destructive 3D pathology.

Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2021; 5: 203-218

• Mroz E.A.
• Rocco J.W.

MATH, a novel measure of intratumor genetic heterogeneity, is high in poor-outcome classes of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Oral Oncol. 2013; 49: 211-215

• Mroz E.A.
• et al.

High intratumor genetic heterogeneity is related to worse outcome in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Cancer. 2013; 119: 3034-3042

• Hou Y.
• et al.

Prognostic significance of mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity in uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma.

Ann. Transl. Med. 2020; 8: 339

Clinical relevance of mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity and lung adenocarcinoma.

Ann. Transl. Med. 2019; 7: 432

• Ma D.
• et al.

Clinical and molecular relevance of mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017; 162: 39-48

• Zhang J.
• et al.

Gender-related prognostic value and genomic pattern of intra-tumor heterogeneity in colorectal cancer.

Carcinogenesis. 2017; 38: 837-846

• Oh B.Y.
• et al.

Intratumor heterogeneity inferred from targeted deep sequencing as a prognostic indicator.

Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 4542

• Dentro S.C.
• et al.

Principles of reconstructing the subclonal architecture of cancers.

Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2017; 7a026625

• Beerenwinkel N.
• et al.

Cancer evolution: mathematical models and computational inference.

Syst. Biol. 2015; 64: e1-e25

• Turajlic S.
• et al.

Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019; 20: 404-416

• Andor N.
• et al.

EXPANDS: expanding ploidy and allele frequency on nested subpopulations.

Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 50-60

• Deshwar A.G.
• et al.

PhyloWGS: reconstructing subclonal composition and evolution from whole-genome sequencing of tumors.

Genome Biol. 2015; 16: 35

• Carter S.L.
• et al.

Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2012; 30: 413-421

• Raynaud F.
• et al.

Pan-cancer inference of intra-tumor heterogeneity reveals associations with different forms of genomic instability.

PLoS Genet. 2018; 14e1007669

• Schwarz R.F.
• et al.

Phylogenetic quantification of intra-tumour heterogeneity.

PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014; 10e1003535

• Watkins T.B.K.
• Schwarz R.F.

Phylogenetic quantification of intratumor heterogeneity.

Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2018; 8a028316

• Schwarz R.F.
• et al.

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a phylogenetic analysis.

PLoS Med. 2015; 12e1001789

• Aran D.
• et al.

Systematic pan-cancer analysis of tumour purity.

Nat. Commun. 2015; 6: 8971

• Luo Z.
• et al.

Accurity: accurate tumor purity and ploidy inference from tumor-normal WGS data by jointly modelling somatic copy number alterations and heterozygous germline single-nucleotide-variants.

Bioinformatics. 2018; 34: 2004-2011

• Prandi D.
• Demichelis F.

Ploidy and purity adjusted DNA allele specific analysis using CLONETv2.

Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics. 2019; 67e81

• Noorbakhsh J.
• et al.

Distribution-based measures of tumor heterogeneity are sensitive to mutation calling and lack strong clinical predictive power.

Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 11445

• Abécassis J.
• et al.

Assessing reliability of intra-tumor heterogeneity estimates from single sample whole exome sequencing data.

PLoS ONE. 2019; 14e0224143

• Miura S.
• et al.

Predicting clone genotypes from tumor bulk sequencing of multiple samples.

Bioinformatics. 2018; 34: 4017-4026

• Lähnemann D.
• et al.

Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science.

Genome Biol. 2020; 21: 31

• Almendro V.
• et al.

Cellular heterogeneity and molecular evolution in cancer.

Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2013; 8: 277-302

• Park S.Y.
• et al.

Cellular and genetic diversity in the progression of in situ human breast carcinomas to an invasive phenotype.

J. Clin. Invest. 2010; 120: 636-644

• Almendro V.
• et al.

Genetic and phenotypic diversity in breast tumor metastases.

Cancer Res. 2014; 74: 1338-1348

• Janiszewska M.
• et al.

In situ single-cell analysis identifies heterogeneity for PIK3CA mutation and HER2 amplification in HER2-positive breast cancer.

Nat. Genet. 2015; 47: 1212-1219

• Chung Y.R.
• et al.

Diversity index as a novel prognostic factor in breast cancer.

Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 97114-97126

• Kreso A.
• et al.

Variable clonal repopulation dynamics influence chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer.

Science. 2013; 339: 543-548

• Easwaran H.
• et al.

Cancer epigenetics: tumor heterogeneity, plasticity of stem-like states, and drug resistance.

Mol. Cell. 2014; 54: 716-727

• Oakes C.C.
• et al.

Evolution of DNA methylation is linked to genetic aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Cancer Discov. 2014; 4: 348-361

• Sharma S.V.
• et al.

A chromatin-mediated reversible drug-tolerant state in cancer cell subpopulations.

Cell. 2010; 141: 69-80

• Brock A.
• et al.

Non-genetic heterogeneity — a mutation-independent driving force for the somatic evolution of tumours.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009; 10: 336-342

• Li M.
• et al.

An algorithm to quantify intratumor heterogeneity based on alterations of gene expression profiles.

Commun. Biol. 2020; 3: 505

• Park Y.
• et al.

Measuring intratumor heterogeneity by network entropy using RNA-seq data.

Sci. Rep. 2016; 6srep37767

• Kim M.
• et al.

SpliceHetero: an information theoretic approach for measuring spliceomic intratumor heterogeneity from bulk tumor RNA-seq.

PLoS ONE. 2019; 14e0223520

• Cheng F.
• et al.

Investigating cellular network heterogeneity and modularity in cancer: a network entropy and unbalanced motif approach.

BMC Syst. Biol. 2016; 10: 65

• Levitin H.M.
• et al.

Single-cell transcriptomic analysis of tumor heterogeneity.

Trends Cancer. 2018; 4: 264-268

• Ma L.
• et al.

Tumor cell biodiversity drives microenvironmental reprogramming in liver cancer.

Cancer Cell. 2019; 36: 418-430

• Faratian D.
• et al.

Heterogeneity mapping of protein expression in tumors using quantitative immunofluorescence.

J. Vis. Exp. 2011; 5e3334

• Potts S.J.
• et al.

Evaluating tumor heterogeneity in immunohistochemistry-stained breast cancer tissue.

Lab. Investig. 2012; 92: 1342-1357

• Gerdes M.J.
• et al.

Single-cell heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast.

Mod. Pathol. 2018; 31: 406-417

• Spagnolo D.M.
• et al.

Platform for quantitative evaluation of spatial intratumoral heterogeneity in multiplexed fluorescence images.

Cancer Res. 2017; 77: e71-e74

• Spagnolo D.M.
• et al.

Pointwise mutual information quantifies intratumor heterogeneity in tissue sections labeled with multiple fluorescent biomarkers.

J. Pathol. Inform. 2016; 7: 47

• Graf J.F.
• Zavodszky M.I.

Characterizing the heterogeneity of tumor tissues from spatially resolved molecular measures.

PLoS ONE. 2017; 12e0188878

• Bendall S.C.
• Nolan G.P.

From single cells to deep phenotypes in cancer.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2012; 30: 639-647

• Di Palma S.
• Bodenmiller B.

Unraveling cell populations in tumors by single-cell mass cytometry.

Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015; 31: 122-129

• Jackson H.W.
• et al.

The single-cell pathology landscape of breast cancer.

Nature. 2020; 578: 615-620

• Rapsomaniki M.A.
• et al.

CellCycleTRACER accounts for cell cycle and volume in mass cytometry data.

Nat. Commun. 2018; 9: 632

• Heindl A.
• et al.

Mapping spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment: a new era for digital pathology.

Lab. Investig. 2015; 95: 377-384

• Setiadi A.F.
• et al.

Quantitative, architectural analysis of immune cell subsets in tumor-draining lymph nodes from breast cancer patients and healthy lymph nodes.

PLoS ONE. 2010; 5e12420

• Gong C.
• et al.

Quantitative characterization of cd8+ t cell clustering and spatial heterogeneity in solid tumors.

Front. Oncol. 2019; 8: 649

Modelling the spatial heterogeneity and molecular correlates of lymphocytic infiltration in triple-negative breast cancer.

J. R. Soc. Interface. 2015; 12: 20141153

• Nawaz S.
• et al.

Beyond immune density: critical role of spatial heterogeneity in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer.

Mod. Pathol. 2015; 28: 766-777

• Khan A.M.
• Yuan Y.

Biopsy variability of lymphocytic infiltration in breast cancer subtypes and the ImmunoSkew score.

Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 36231

• Keren L.
• et al.

A structured tumor-immune microenvironment in triple negative breast cancer revealed by multiplexed ion beam imaging.

Cell. 2018; 174: 1373-1387

• Vickman R.E.
• et al.

Deconstructing tumor heterogeneity: the stromal perspective.

Oncotarget. 2020; 11: 3621-3632

• Yun G.
• et al.

Tumor heterogeneity of pancreas head cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: association with survival outcomes after curative resection.

Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 7226

• Yip C.
• et al.

Primary esophageal cancer: heterogeneity as potential prognostic biomarker in patients treated with definitive chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Radiology. 2014; 270: 141-148

• Ng F.
• et al.

Assessment of primary colorectal cancer heterogeneity by using whole-tumor texture analysis: contrast-enhanced CT texture as a biomarker of 5-year survival.

Radiology. 2013; 266: 177-184

• Chakraborty J.
• et al.

Preliminary study of tumor heterogeneity in imaging predicts two year survival in pancreatic cancer patients.

PLoS ONE. 2017; 12e0188022

• Yoon S.H.
• et al.

Tumor heterogeneity in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced gastric cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: association with survival after trastuzumab treatment.

PLoS ONE. 2016; 11e0161278

• Watanabe H.
• et al.

Quantification of structural heterogeneity using fractal analysis of contrast-enhanced CT image to predict survival in gastric cancer patients.

Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020; 66: 2069-2074

• Goh V.
• et al.

Assessment of the spatial pattern of colorectal tumour perfusion estimated at perfusion CT using two-dimensional fractal analysis.

Eur. Radiol. 2009; 19: 1358-1365

• Kurata Y.
• et al.

Fractal analysis of contrast-enhanced CT images for preoperative prediction of malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Abdom. Radiol. 2018; 43: 2659-2664

• Hayano K.
• et al.

Fractal analysis of contrast-enhanced CT images to predict survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

Dig. Dis. Sci. 2014; 59: 1996-2003

• Lo Gullo R.
• et al.

Combining molecular and imaging metrics in cancer: radiogenomics.

Insights Imaging. 2020; 11: 1

• Aerts H.J.W.L.
• et al.

Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach.

Nat. Commun. 2014; 5: 4006

• Segal E.
• et al.

Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging.

Nat. Biotechnol. 2007; 25: 675-680

• Ghosh P.
• et al.

Imaging-genomic pipeline for identifying gene mutations using three-dimensional intra-tumor heterogeneity features.

J. Med. Imaging (Bellingham). 2015; 2041009

Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage.

J. Nucl. Med. 2004; 45: 1431-1434

• Pugachev A.
• et al.

Dependence of FDG uptake on tumor microenvironment.

Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005; 62: 545-553

• Grizzi F.
• et al.

The complexity and fractal geometry of nuclear medicine images.

Mol. Imaging Biol. 2019; 21: 401-409

• Keyes J.W.

SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?.

J. Nucl. Med. 1995; 36: 1836-1839

• El Naqa I.
• et al.

Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes.

Pattern Recogn. 2009; 42: 1162-1171

• Tixier F.
• et al.

Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer.

J. Nucl. Med. 2011; 52: 369-378

• Ganeshan B.
• et al.

Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival.

Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22: 796-802

• Castello A.
• et al.

Prognostic impact of intratumoral heterogeneity based on fractal geometry analysis in operated NSCLC patients.

Mol. Imaging Biol. 2019; 21: 965-972

• Miwa K.
• et al.

FDG uptake heterogeneity evaluated by fractal analysis improves the differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules.

Eur. J. Radiol. 2014; 83: 715-719

• Bashir U.
• et al.

Investigating the histopathologic correlates of 18F-FDG PET heterogeneity in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Nucl. Med. Commun. 2018; 39: 1197-1206

• Kim J-H.
• et al.

Breast cancer heterogeneity: MR imaging texture analysis and survival outcomes.

Radiology. 2016; 282: 665-675

• Golden D.I.
• et al.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-based biomarkers of therapeutic response in triple-negative breast cancer.

J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2013; 20: 1059-1066

• Braman N.M.
• et al.

Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI.

Breast Cancer Res. 2017; 19: 57

• Chang R-F.
• et al.

Quantification of breast tumor heterogeneity for ER status, HER2 status, and TN molecular subtype evaluation on DCE-MRI.

Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2016; 34: 809-819

• Harrison L.C.
• et al.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma response evaluation with MRI texture classification.

J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009; 28: 87

• Liu Y.
• et al.

Relationship between glioblastoma heterogeneity and survival time: an MR imaging texture analysis.

Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2017; 38: 1695-1701

• Ren J.
• et al.

Tumor heterogeneity in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma assessed by texture analysis of CT and conventional MRI: a potential marker of overall survival.

Acta Radiol. 2019; 60: 1273-1280

• Liu S.
• et al.

Relationship between necrotic patterns in glioblastoma and patient survival: fractal dimension and lacunarity analyses using magnetic resonance imaging.

Sci. Rep. 2017; 7: 8302

• Alic L.
• et al.

Heterogeneity in DCE-MRI parametric maps: a biomarker for treatment response?.

Phys. Med. Biol. 2011; 56: 1601-1616

• O’Connor J.P.B.
• et al.

DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour heterogeneity predict CRC liver metastasis shrinkage following bevacizumab and FOLFOX-6.

Br. J. Cancer. 2011; 105: 139-145

• Prescott J.W.
• et al.

Temporal analysis of tumor heterogeneity and volume for cervical cancer treatment outcome prediction: preliminary evaluation.

J. Digit. Imaging. 2010; 23: 342-357

• Mahrooghy M.
• et al.

Heterogeneity wavelet kinetics from DCE-MRI for classifying gene expression based breast cancer recurrence risk.

Med. Image Comput. Assist. Interv. 2013; 16: 295-302

• Brooks F.J.

On some misconceptions about tumor heterogeneity quantification.

Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2013; 40: 1292-1294

• Davnall F.
• et al.

Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice?.

Insights Imaging. 2012; 3: 573-589

• Zhao B.
• et al.

Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging.

Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 23428

• Sharma A.
• et al.

Non-genetic intra-tumor heterogeneity is a major predictor of phenotypic heterogeneity and ongoing evolutionary dynamics in lung tumors.

Cell Rep. 2019; 29: 2164-2174

• AbdulJabbar K.
• et al.

Geospatial immune variability illuminates differential evolution of lung adenocarcinoma.

Nat. Med. 2020; 26: 1054-1062

• Pati P.
• et al.

Hierarchical graph representations in digital pathology.

Med. Image Anal. 2021; 75102264

• Eraslan G.
• et al.

Deep learning: new computational modelling techniques for genomics.

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019; 20: 389-403

• Jaume G.
• et al.

Quantifying explainers of graph neural networks in computational pathology.

in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2021: 8106-8116

• Zacharaki E.I.
• et al.

MRI-based classification of brain tumor type and grade using SVM-RFE.

in: 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. IEEE, 2009: 1035-1038

• Gough A.
• et al.

Biologically relevant heterogeneity: metrics and practical insights.

SLAS Discov. 2017; 22: 213-237

• Magurran A.E.

Measuring Biological Diversity.

John Wiley & Sons, 2013

• Shannon C.E.

A mathematical theory of communication.

Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948; 27: 379-423

• Ripley B.D.

Modelling spatial patterns.

J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1977; 39: 172-192

• Bessag J.E.

Comments on Ripley’s paper.

J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. 1977; 39: 193-195

• Schapiro D.
• et al.

histoCAT: analysis of cell phenotypes and interactions in multiplex image cytometry data.

Nat. Methods. 2017; 14: 873

• Lubner M.G.
• et al.

CT texture analysis: definitions, applications, biologic correlates, and challenges.

RadioGraphics. 2017; 37: 1483-1503

• Haralick R.M.
• et al.

Textural features for image classification.

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1973; SMC-3: 610-621

• Haralick R.M.

Statistical and structural approaches to texture.

Proc. IEEE. 1979; 67: 786-804

• Amadasun M.
• King R.

Textural features corresponding to textural properties.

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1989; 19: 1264-1274

• Galloway M.M.

Texture analysis using gray level run lengths.

Comput. Graph. Image Process. 1975; 4: 172-179

• Tsai D-M.
• Tseng C-F.

Surface roughness classification for castings.

Pattern Recogn. 1999; 32: 389-405

• Zhang D.
• et al.

Content-based image retrieval using Gabor texture features.

in: First IEEE Pacific-Rim Conference on Multimedia. IEEE, 2000: 13-15

• Mandelbrot B.B.

Fractals. Form, Chance and Dimension.

W.H. Freeman, 1977

• Sarkar N.
• Chaudhuri B.B.

An efficient differential box-counting approach to compute fractal dimension of image.

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1994; 24: 115-120