| Literature DB >> 25995019 |
Anna M Brown1,2, Sidhartha Nagala3, Mary A McLean1, Yonggang Lu4, Daniel Scoffings5, Aditya Apte4, Mithat Gonen6, Hilda E Stambuk7, Ashok R Shaha8, R Michael Tuttle9, Joseph O Deasy4, Andrew N Priest5, Piyush Jani10, Amita Shukla-Dave4,7, John Griffiths1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspirate cytology fails to diagnose many malignant thyroid nodules; consequently, patients may undergo diagnostic lobectomy. This study assessed whether textural analysis (TA) could noninvasively stratify thyroid nodules accurately using diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI).Entities:
Keywords: diffusion-weighted MRI; textural analysis; thyroid tumors
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25995019 PMCID: PMC4654719 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Magn Reson Med ISSN: 0740-3194 Impact factor: 4.668
Thyroid Nodule Cytology Classification Schema According to the 2007 British Thyroid Association Guidelines
| Thy1 | Thy2 | Thy3 | Thy4 | Thy5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Nondiagnostic/cysts | Nonneoplastic | Indeterminate | Suspicious for malignancy | Malignant |
| Current management recommendations | Repeat FNAC and ultrasonography at follow‐up | Repeat FNAC 3–6 months | Diagnostic lobectomy | Repeat FNAC, then either diagnostic lobectomy or radical treatment | Radical treatment |
Comparison of Thyroid Tumor DW‐MRI Studies
| Study/Tissue Type | n | Mean ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) ± SD | Optimum ADC Threshold |
|---|---|---|---|
| Razek et al. | 0.98 × 10−3 mm2/s | ||
| Benign | |||
| Adenomatous nodule | 42 | 1.8 ± 0.14 | |
| Follicular adenoma | 6 | 1.7 ± 0.17 | |
| Cyst | 8 | 1.9 ± 0.38 | |
| Malignant | |||
| Papillary | 4 | 0.68 ± 0.23 | |
| Follicular | 3 | 0.77 ± 0.17 | |
| Bozgeyik et al. | 0.62 × 10−3 mm2/s | ||
| Benign | 88 | 1.15 ± 0.43 | |
| Malignant | 5 | 0.30 ± 0.20 | |
| Schueller‐Weidekamm et al. | 2.25 × 10−3 mm2/s | ||
| Benign | 20 | 1.93 ± 0.25 | |
| Malignant | 5 | 2.73 ± 0.65 | |
| Contralateral | 20 | 1.44 ± 0.65 | |
| Erdem et al. | NA | ||
| Benign | 52 | 2.75 ± 0.60 | |
| Malignant | 9 | 0.70 ± 0.31 | |
| Control normal | 24 | 1.34 ± 0.28 | |
| Nakahira et al. | 1.60 × 10−3 mm2/s | ||
| Benign | 23 | 1.93 ± 0.37 | |
| Malignant | 19 | 1.20 ± 0.25 | |
| Mutlu at al. | 1.60 × 10−3 mm2/s | ||
| Benign | 46 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | |
| Malignant | 5 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | |
| Dilli et al. | NA | ||
| Benign | 40 | 1.98 ± 0.48 | |
| Malignant | 19 | 0.83 ± 0.18 |
Abbreviations: NA, not available; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1ADC images for a patient with a follicular adenoma from the training set. (a) Neuroradiologist‐defined ROI of the lesion on a bitmap‐format ADC map in FuncTool. (b) The same ROI shown on the original resolution DICOM‐format ADC map in ImageJ.
Figure 2(a) Overall weighted mean and 95% CI of the ADC values of benign and malignant thyroid tumors for DW‐EPI (P = 0.02 for the difference between means). The overall weighted mean ADC for benign tumors was 2.24 × 10−3 mm2/s (95% CI, 2.09–2.39), and for papillary carcinoma malignant tumors it was 1.92 × 10−3 mm2/s (95% CI, 1.65–2.19). The follicular carcinoma (n = 1) and neuroendocrine (n = 1) tumors shown in this graph were not included in the final analysis. (b) ROC curve for performance of ADC using a cutoff value of 2.16 × 10−3 mm2/s to distinguish benign and malignant nodules demonstrates an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51–0.95), sensitivity of 70%, and specificity of 63%.
Figure 3Texture‐based classification of individual images (a‐c) and the nodule as a whole (d). (a) Output from b11 for the LDA classification MDF1 values for all 94 slices of the training set. MDF1 values are shown for benign and malignant slices, where the red 1 symbol = benign and the green 2 symbol = malignant. Eighty‐nine of the 94 slices were classified correctly using a cutoff value of 0.03265. (b) Mean and standard deviation of the benign and malignant MDF1 values. (c) ROC curve for using this MDF1 cutoff as a diagnostic tool (P < 0.0001 and AUC of 0.97 [95% CI, 0.92–1.0]). (d) LDA classification results for the slice with the lowest MDF1 value per patient (lowest scoring slice analysis). Twenty‐two of the 24 nodules were classified correctly using the same training set cutoff value of 0.03265. The mean and standard deviation values are shown along with separate points for each nodule. The two misclassified nodules were both malignant and are shown in red.
Top 30 Texture Parameters and Top 21 Feature Subset for Thyroid Stratification Model
| MaZda Rank | Texture Class | Top 30 Texture Parameters | Top 21 Feature Subset |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Geometric | GeoY | GeoY |
| 2 | Geometric | GeoX | GeoX |
| 3 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(0,3)SumAverg | S(0,3)SumAverg |
| 4 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(0,4)SumAverg | S(0,4)SumAverg |
| 5 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(0,1)SumAverg | S(0,1)SumAverg |
| 6 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(0,2)SumAverg | S(0,2)SumAverg |
| 7 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(0,5)SumAverg | S(0,5)SumAverg |
| 8 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(2,0)SumOfSqs | S(2,0)SumOfSqs |
| 9 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(1,0)SumOfSqs | S(1,0)SumOfSqs |
| 10 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(2,2)Correlat | S(2,2)Correlat |
| 11 | Geometric | GeoM2xy | GeoM2xy |
| 12 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(1,0)SumVarnc | S(1,0)SumVarnc |
| 13 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(3,‐3)DifVarnc | S(3,‐3)DifVarnc |
| 14 | Geometric | GeoS2 | GeoS2 |
| 15 | Geometric | GeoXYo | GeoXYo |
| 16 | Autoregressive model | Teta1 | Teta1 |
| 17 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(2,0)SumAverg | S(2,0)SumAverg |
| 18 | Geometric | GeoYo | GeoYo |
| 19 | Wavelet transform | WavEnHH_s‐3 | WavEnHH_s‐3 |
| 20 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(5,5)DifEntrp | S(5,5)DifEntrp |
| 21 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(1,0)SumAverg | S(1,0)SumAverg |
| 22 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(1,1)SumAverg | |
| 23 | Wavelet transform | WavEnLL_s‐3 | |
| 24 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(2,2)SumAverg | |
| 25 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(1,‐1)SumAverg | |
| 26 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(2,‐2)SumAverg | |
| 27 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(3,0)SumAverg | |
| 28 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(3,3)SumAverg | |
| 29 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(4,0)SumAverg | |
| 30 | Co‐occurrence matrix | S(3,‐3)SumAverg |
Figure 4(a) LDA classification most discriminant factor 1 (MDF1) results for all 34 slices of the test set, with median and interquartile ranges displayed alongside training set results. Thirty‐two of the 34 slices were classified correctly using the training set cutoff value of 0.03265. (b) LDA classification results for the slice with the lowest MDF1 value per patient (lowest scoring slice analysis) for the test set. Sixteen of 18 nodules were classified correctly using the same training set cutoff value of 0.03265 for MDF1 values. Mean and standard deviation values are shown along with separate points for each nodule. One of the two misclassified test set nodules is shown in red, and the other was an outlier (data not shown; MDF1 value = −13.5).