David Molina1, Julián Pérez-Beteta2, Alicia Martínez-González2, Juan Martino3, Carlos Velásquez3, Estanislao Arana4, Víctor M Pérez-García2. 1. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Electronic address: david.molina@uclm.es. 2. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. 3. Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla and Fundación Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla, Spain. 4. Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tumor heterogeneity in medical imaging is a current research trend due to its potential relationship with tumor malignancy. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of dynamic range and matrix size changes on the results of different heterogeneity measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patients harboring three glioblastomas and one metastasis were considered. Sixteen textural heterogeneity measures were computed for each patient, with a configuration including co-occurrence matrices (CM) features (local heterogeneity) and run-length matrices (RLM) features (regional heterogeneity). The coefficient of variation measured agreement between the textural measures in two types of experiments: (i) fixing the matrix size and changing the dynamic range and (ii) fixing the dynamic range and changing the matrix size. RESULTS: None of the measures considered were robust under dynamic range changes. The CM Entropy and the RLM high gray-level run emphasis (HGRE) were the outstanding textural features due to their robustness under matrix size changes. Also, the RLM low gray-level run emphasis (LGRE) provided robust results when the dynamic range considered was sufficiently high (more than 8 levels). All of the remaining textural features were not robust. CONCLUSION: Tumor texture studies based on images with different characteristics (e.g. multi-center studies) should first fix the dynamic range to be considered. For studies involving images of different resolutions either (i) only robust measures should be used (in our study CM entropy, RLM HGRE and/or RLM LGRE) or (ii) images should be resampled to match those of the lowest resolution before computing the textural features.
PURPOSE: Tumor heterogeneity in medical imaging is a current research trend due to its potential relationship with tumor malignancy. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of dynamic range and matrix size changes on the results of different heterogeneity measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patients harboring three glioblastomas and one metastasis were considered. Sixteen textural heterogeneity measures were computed for each patient, with a configuration including co-occurrence matrices (CM) features (local heterogeneity) and run-length matrices (RLM) features (regional heterogeneity). The coefficient of variation measured agreement between the textural measures in two types of experiments: (i) fixing the matrix size and changing the dynamic range and (ii) fixing the dynamic range and changing the matrix size. RESULTS: None of the measures considered were robust under dynamic range changes. The CM Entropy and the RLM high gray-level run emphasis (HGRE) were the outstanding textural features due to their robustness under matrix size changes. Also, the RLM low gray-level run emphasis (LGRE) provided robust results when the dynamic range considered was sufficiently high (more than 8 levels). All of the remaining textural features were not robust. CONCLUSION: Tumor texture studies based on images with different characteristics (e.g. multi-center studies) should first fix the dynamic range to be considered. For studies involving images of different resolutions either (i) only robust measures should be used (in our study CM entropy, RLM HGRE and/or RLM LGRE) or (ii) images should be resampled to match those of the lowest resolution before computing the textural features.
Authors: David Molina; Julián Pérez-Beteta; Belén Luque; Elena Arregui; Manuel Calvo; José M Borrás; Carlos López; Juan Martino; Carlos Velasquez; Beatriz Asenjo; Manuel Benavides; Ismael Herruzo; Alicia Martínez-González; Luis Pérez-Romasanta; Estanislao Arana; Víctor M Pérez-García Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Monika Béresová; Andrés Larroza; Estanislao Arana; József Varga; László Balkay; David Moratal Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Katharina V Hoebel; Jay B Patel; Andrew L Beers; Ken Chang; Praveer Singh; James M Brown; Marco C Pinho; Tracy T Batchelor; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Bruce R Rosen; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-12-16
Authors: C J Park; K Han; H Kim; S S Ahn; D Choi; Y W Park; J H Chang; S H Kim; S Cha; S-K Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David Molina; Julián Pérez-Beteta; Alicia Martínez-González; Juan Martino; Carlos Velasquez; Estanislao Arana; Víctor M Pérez-García Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ana María Garcia-Vicente; David Molina; Julián Pérez-Beteta; Mariano Amo-Salas; Alicia Martínez-González; Gloria Bueno; María Jesús Tello-Galán; Ángel Soriano-Castrejón Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 2.668