Literature DB >> 26936718

Dynamic fractal signature dissimilarity analysis for therapeutic response assessment using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Chunhao Wang1, Ergys Subashi1, Fang-Fang Yin1, Zheng Chang1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a dynamic fractal signature dissimilarity (FSD) method as a novel image texture analysis technique for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity information for better therapeutic response assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI.
METHODS: A small animal antiangiogenesis drug treatment experiment was used to demonstrate the proposed method. Sixteen LS-174T implanted mice were randomly assigned into treatment and control groups (n = 8/group). All mice received bevacizumab (treatment) or saline (control) three times in two weeks, and one pretreatment and two post-treatment DCE-MRI scans were performed. In the proposed dynamic FSD method, a dynamic FSD curve was generated to characterize the heterogeneity evolution during the contrast agent uptake, and the area under FSD curve (AUCFSD) and the maximum enhancement (MEFSD) were selected as representative parameters. As for comparison, the pharmacokinetic parameter K(trans) map and area under MR intensity enhancement curve AUCMR map were calculated. Besides the tumor's mean value and coefficient of variation, the kurtosis, skewness, and classic Rényi dimensions d1 and d2 of K(trans) and AUCMR maps were evaluated for heterogeneity assessment for comparison. For post-treatment scans, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess the differences of the investigated parameters between treatment/control groups. The support vector machine (SVM) was applied to classify treatment/control groups using the investigated parameters at each post-treatment scan day.
RESULTS: The tumor mean K(trans) and its heterogeneity measurements d1 and d2 values showed significant differences between treatment/control groups in the second post-treatment scan. In contrast, the relative values (in reference to the pretreatment value) of AUCFSD and MEFSD in both post-treatment scans showed significant differences between treatment/control groups. When using AUCFSD and MEFSD as SVM input for treatment/control classification, the achieved accuracies were 93.8% and 93.8% at first and second post-treatment scan days, respectively. In comparison, the classification accuracies using d1 and d2 of K(trans) map were 87.5% and 100% at first and second post-treatment scan days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: As quantitative metrics of tumor contrast agent uptake heterogeneity, the selected parameters from the dynamic FSD method accurately captured the therapeutic response in the experiment. The potential application of the proposed method is promising, and its addition to the existing DCE-MRI techniques could improve DCE-MRI performance in early assessment of treatment response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26936718      PMCID: PMC4760981          DOI: 10.1118/1.4941739

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  48 in total

1.  Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied?

Authors:  John Eng
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Kenya Murase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  Texture analysis of medical images.

Authors:  G Castellano; L Bonilha; L M Li; F Cendes
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Hui Li; Ulrich Bick; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 5.  Review of treatment assessment using DCE-MRI in breast cancer radiation therapy.

Authors:  Chun-Hao Wang; Fang-Fang Yin; Janet Horton; Zheng Chang
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2014-06-26

Review 6.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker.

Authors:  Nola Hylton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Preoperative Single-Fraction Partial Breast Radiation Therapy: A Novel Phase 1, Dose-Escalation Protocol With Radiation Response Biomarkers.

Authors:  Janet K Horton; Rachel C Blitzblau; Sua Yoo; Joseph Geradts; Zheng Chang; Jay A Baker; Gregory S Georgiade; Wei Chen; Sharareh Siamakpour-Reihani; Chunhao Wang; Gloria Broadwater; Jeff Groth; Manisha Palta; Mark Dewhirst; William T Barry; Eileen A Duffy; Jen-Tsan A Chi; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 8.  Lessons from phase III clinical trials on anti-VEGF therapy for cancer.

Authors:  Rakesh K Jain; Dan G Duda; Jeffrey W Clark; Jay S Loeffler
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2006-01

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

Authors:  L Alic; M van Vliet; C F van Dijke; A M M Eggermont; J F Veenland; W J Niessen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer.

Authors:  Min-Ying Su; Yun-Chung Cheung; John P Fruehauf; Hon Yu; Orhan Nalcioglu; Eugene Mechetner; Ainura Kyshtoobayeva; Shin-Cheh Chen; Swei Hsueh; Christine E McLaren; Yung-Liang Wan
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.813

View more
  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of the effect of transcytolemmal water exchange analysis for therapeutic response assessment using DCE-MRI: a comparison study.

Authors:  Chunhao Wang; Ergys Subashi; Xiao Liang; Fang-Fang Yin; Zheng Chang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  CT Radiomics in Thoracic Oncology: Technique and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Geewon Lee; So Hyeon Bak; Ho Yun Lee
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-12-18

3.  Prediction of tumor doubling time of lung adenocarcinoma using radiomic margin characteristics.

Authors:  Hyun Jung Yoon; Hyunjin Park; Ho Yun Lee; Insuk Sohn; Joonghyun Ahn; Seung-Hak Lee
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  Evaluating Heterogeneity of Primary Lung Tumor Using Clinical Routine Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a Tumor Heterogeneity Index.

Authors:  Nan Hu; ShaoHan Yin; Qiwen Li; Haoqiang He; Linchang Zhong; Nan-Jie Gong; Jinyu Guo; Peiqiang Cai; Chuanmiao Xie; Hui Liu; Bo Qiu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Are radiomics features universally applicable to different organs?

Authors:  Seung-Hak Lee; Hwan-Ho Cho; Junmo Kwon; Ho Yun Lee; Hyunjin Park
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 3.909

6.  MRI texture analysis in predicting treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Yankai Meng; Chongda Zhang; Shuangmei Zou; Xinming Zhao; Kai Xu; Hongmei Zhang; Chunwu Zhou
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-12-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.