| Literature DB >> 26207380 |
Eran Sadot1, Amber L Simpson2, Richard K G Do3, Mithat Gonen4, Jinru Shia5, Peter J Allen1, Michael I D'Angelica1, Ronald P DeMatteo1, T Peter Kingham1, William R Jarnagin1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate associations between imaging features of cholangiocarcinoma by visual assessment and texture analysis, which quantifies heterogeneity in tumor enhancement patterns, with molecular profiles based on hypoxia markers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26207380 PMCID: PMC4514866 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Representative tumors with high and low values for each texture feature (A).
Schematic of prediction model of protein expression constructed from quantitative imaging phenotypes. Quantitative image phenotypes are derived via texture analysis: the tumor region is extracted from CT, texture feature statistics are automatically computed based on the region of interest (B).
Fig 2Selected linear regression plots of texture features with respect to protein expression levels.
The 95% confidence interval is rendered. For descriptive purpose, each protein is plotted against the texture feature that contributed the most to the prediction model (A). Two intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas with low (top row) and high (bottom row) VEGF/EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry. After semi-automated segmentation of tumor borders from CT images, the tumor pixel attenuation values are evaluated for texture features. Axial slices of the segmented tumors are shown with texture features calculated for each slice and averaged. (B).
Multiple linear regression analysis of hypoxia markers and quantitative imaging phenotypes.
| Hypoxia markers (%) | Imaging phenotype | R2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Entropy, energy, correlation, contrast, homogeneity | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Entropy, energy, correlation, contrast | 0.3 | 0.12 | |
| Entropy, correlation, contrast, | 0.28 | 0.08 | |
| Correlation, contrast | 0.26 |
| |
| Correlation | 0.23 |
| |
|
| Entropy, energy, correlation, contrast, homogeneity | 0.47 |
|
| Entropy, energy, correlation, homogeneity | 0.43 |
| |
| Entropy, correlation, homogeneity | 0.41 |
| |
|
| Entropy, correlation, energy, contrast, homogeneity | 0.73 | 0.36 |
| Entropy, correlation, energy, homogeneity | 0.73 | 0.18 | |
| Entropy, correlation, homogeneity | 0.68 | 0.104 |
Relationship between qualitative imaging features and protein expression levels by linear regression.
| Imaging features | EGFR (%) | VEGF (%) | CD24 (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | P-value | R2 | β | P-value | R2 | β | P-value | R2 | |
|
| -0.17 | 0.4 | 0.3 | -0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 0.4 |
|
| -0.09 | 0.7 | 0.007 | -0.4 |
| 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
|
| -0.09 | 0.7 | 0.008 | -0.5 |
| 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| -0.06 | 0.8 | 0.004 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.07 | -0.01 | 0.9 | <0.001 |
|
| -0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.05 | 0.8 | 0.003 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.9 | <0.001 | NA | NA | NA |
|
| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.05 | 0.8 | 0.003 | -0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
|
| -0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.9 | <0.001 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.07 | -0.1 | 0.6 | 0.01 | -0.1 | 0.7 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.01 | NA | NA | NA |
|
| 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.01 | NA | NA | NA |
|
| 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.009 | -0.1 | 0.5 | 0.02 | -0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
|
| -0.1 | 0.5 | 0.02 | -0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
| 0.5 |
NA–not analyzed.
aImaging features are defined in S2 Table.