Rajikha Raja1, Neelam Sinha2, Jitender Saini3, Anita Mahadevan3, Kvl Narasinga Rao3, Aarthi Swaminathan3. 1. International Institute of Information Technology-Bangalore, 26/C, Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore, India. r.rajika@gmail.com. 2. International Institute of Information Technology-Bangalore, 26/C, Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore, India. neel.iam@gmail.com. 3. National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this work, we aim to assess the significance of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters in grading gliomas. METHODS: Retrospective studies were performed on 53 subjects with gliomas belonging to WHO grade II (n = 19), grade III (n = 20) and grade IV (n = 14). Expert marked regions of interest (ROIs) covering the tumour on T2-weighted images. Statistical texture measures such as entropy and busyness calculated over ROIs on diffusion parametric maps were used to assess the tumour heterogeneity. Additionally, we propose a volume heterogeneity index derived from cross correlation (CC) analysis as a tool for grading gliomas. The texture measures were compared between grades by performing the Mann-Whitney test followed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Entropy, busyness and volume heterogeneity index for all diffusion parameters except fractional anisotropy and anisotropy of kurtosis showed significant differences between grades. The Mann-Whitney test on mean diffusivity (MD), among DTI parameters, resulted in the highest discriminability with values of P = 0.029 (0.0421) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.0312 (0.0415) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). In DKI, mean kurtosis (MK) showed the highest discriminability, P = 0.018 (0.038) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.022 (0.04) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). Results of CC analysis illustrate the existence of homogeneity in volume (uniformity across slices) for lower grades, as compared to higher grades. Hypothesis testing performed on volume heterogeneity index showed P values of 0.0002 (0.0001) and 0.0003 (0.0003) between grades II vs. III and III vs. IV, respectively, for MD (MK). CONCLUSION: In summary, the studies demonstrated great potential towards automating grading gliomas by employing tumour heterogeneity measures on DTI and DKI parameters.
INTRODUCTION: In this work, we aim to assess the significance of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters in grading gliomas. METHODS: Retrospective studies were performed on 53 subjects with gliomas belonging to WHO grade II (n = 19), grade III (n = 20) and grade IV (n = 14). Expert marked regions of interest (ROIs) covering the tumour on T2-weighted images. Statistical texture measures such as entropy and busyness calculated over ROIs on diffusion parametric maps were used to assess the tumour heterogeneity. Additionally, we propose a volume heterogeneity index derived from cross correlation (CC) analysis as a tool for grading gliomas. The texture measures were compared between grades by performing the Mann-Whitney test followed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Entropy, busyness and volume heterogeneity index for all diffusion parameters except fractional anisotropy and anisotropy of kurtosis showed significant differences between grades. The Mann-Whitney test on mean diffusivity (MD), among DTI parameters, resulted in the highest discriminability with values of P = 0.029 (0.0421) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.0312 (0.0415) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). In DKI, mean kurtosis (MK) showed the highest discriminability, P = 0.018 (0.038) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.022 (0.04) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). Results of CC analysis illustrate the existence of homogeneity in volume (uniformity across slices) for lower grades, as compared to higher grades. Hypothesis testing performed on volume heterogeneity index showed P values of 0.0002 (0.0001) and 0.0003 (0.0003) between grades II vs. III and III vs. IV, respectively, for MD (MK). CONCLUSION: In summary, the studies demonstrated great potential towards automating grading gliomas by employing tumour heterogeneity measures on DTI and DKI parameters.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrés Server; Bjørn A Graff; Roger Josefsen; Tone E D Orheim; Till Schellhorn; Wibeke Nordhøy; Per H Nakstad Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-01-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Manus J Donahue; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jinyuan Zhou; Martin G Pomper; John Laterra; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S J Price; N G Burnet; T Donovan; H A L Green; A Peña; N M Antoun; J D Pickard; T A Carpenter; J H Gillard Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Gehad Abdalla; Luke Dixon; Eser Sanverdi; Pedro M Machado; Joey S W Kwong; Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths; Antonio Rojas-Garcia; Daisuke Yoneoka; Jelle Veraart; Sofie Van Cauter; Ahmed M Abdel-Khalek; Magdy Settein; Tarek Yousry; Sotirios Bisdas Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 2.804