PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of texture analysis for the classification of gastric adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors on contrast-enhanced hydrodynamic-MDCT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The arterial phase scans of 47 patients with adenocarcinoma (AC) and a histologic tumor grade of [AC-G1, n=4, G1, n=4; AC-G2, n=7; AC-G3, n=16]; GIST, n=15; and lymphoma, n=5, and the venous phase scans of 48 patients with AC-G1, n=3; AC-G2, n=6; AC-G3, n=14; GIST, n=17; lymphoma, n=8, were retrospectively reviewed. Based on regions of interest, texture analysis was performed, and features derived from the gray-level histogram, run-length and co-occurrence matrix, absolute gradient, autoregressive model, and wavelet transform were calculated. Fisher coefficients, probability of classification error, average correlation coefficients, and mutual information coefficients were used to create combinations of texture features that were optimized for tumor differentiation. Linear discriminant analysis in combination with a k-nearest neighbor classifier was used for tumor classification. RESULTS: On arterial-phase scans, texture-based lesion classification was highly successful in differentiating between AC and lymphoma, and GIST and lymphoma, with misclassification rates of 3.1% and 0%, respectively. On venous-phase scans, texture-based classification was slightly less successful for AC vs. lymphoma (9.7% misclassification) and GIST vs. lymphoma (8% misclassification), but enabled the differentiation between AC and GIST (10% misclassification), and between the different grades of AC (4.4% misclassification). No texture feature combination was able to adequately distinguish between all three tumor types. CONCLUSION: Classification of different gastric tumors based on textural information may aid radiologists in establishing the correct diagnosis, at least in cases where the differential diagnosis can be narrowed down to two histological subtypes.
PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of texture analysis for the classification of gastric adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors on contrast-enhanced hydrodynamic-MDCT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The arterial phase scans of 47 patients with adenocarcinoma (AC) and a histologic tumor grade of [AC-G1, n=4, G1, n=4; AC-G2, n=7; AC-G3, n=16]; GIST, n=15; and lymphoma, n=5, and the venous phase scans of 48 patients with AC-G1, n=3; AC-G2, n=6; AC-G3, n=14; GIST, n=17; lymphoma, n=8, were retrospectively reviewed. Based on regions of interest, texture analysis was performed, and features derived from the gray-level histogram, run-length and co-occurrence matrix, absolute gradient, autoregressive model, and wavelet transform were calculated. Fisher coefficients, probability of classification error, average correlation coefficients, and mutual information coefficients were used to create combinations of texture features that were optimized for tumor differentiation. Linear discriminant analysis in combination with a k-nearest neighbor classifier was used for tumor classification. RESULTS: On arterial-phase scans, texture-based lesion classification was highly successful in differentiating between AC and lymphoma, and GIST and lymphoma, with misclassification rates of 3.1% and 0%, respectively. On venous-phase scans, texture-based classification was slightly less successful for AC vs. lymphoma (9.7% misclassification) and GIST vs. lymphoma (8% misclassification), but enabled the differentiation between AC and GIST (10% misclassification), and between the different grades of AC (4.4% misclassification). No texture feature combination was able to adequately distinguish between all three tumor types. CONCLUSION: Classification of different gastric tumors based on textural information may aid radiologists in establishing the correct diagnosis, at least in cases where the differential diagnosis can be narrowed down to two histological subtypes.
Authors: Barbaros S Erdal; Luciano M Prevedello; Songyue Qian; Mutlu Demirer; Kevin Little; John Ryu; Thomas O'Donnell; Richard D White Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Sofia Antunes; Annalaura Salerno; Alessandro Ambrosi; Paolo Marra; Roberto Nicoletti; Elena Orsenigo; Damiano Chiari; Luca Albarello; Carlo Staudacher; Antonio Esposito; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amber L Simpson; Alexandre Doussot; John M Creasy; Lauryn B Adams; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; Mithat Gönen; Nancy E Kemeny; T Peter Kingham; Jinru Shia; William R Jarnagin; Richard K G Do; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 5.344