| Literature DB >> 28246950 |
Francesca Gallivanone1, Marta Maria Panzeri2, Carla Canevari3, Claudio Losio2, Luigi Gianolli3, Francesco De Cobelli2,4, Isabella Castiglioni5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Human cancers display intra-tumor phenotypic heterogeneity and recent research has focused on developing image processing methods extracting imaging descriptors to characterize this heterogeneity. This work assesses the role of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET and DWI-MR with respect to the prognosis and prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) outcomes when image features are used to characterize primitive lesions from breast cancer (BC).Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET/CT; Breast cancer; DWI-MRI; Image features
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28246950 PMCID: PMC5524876 DOI: 10.1007/s10334-017-0610-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MAGMA ISSN: 0968-5243 Impact factor: 2.310
Features extracted from PET and MR images
| Type of feature | Imaging modality | Feature |
|---|---|---|
| Macroscopic features | PET | Metabolic tumor volume (MTV) [cc] |
| Partial volume corrected mean body-weighted standardized uptake value (SUVmean) [g/cc] | ||
| Maximum body-weighted standardized uptake value (SUVmax) [g/cc] | ||
| Total lesion glycolysis (TLG) [g] | ||
| MR | Apparent diffusion coefficient functional volume ( | |
| Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) within | ||
| Minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) within | ||
| Total lesion diffusion (TLD) [cm5/s] | ||
| Intensity-based features (first-order statistics) | PET/MR | Energy [(g/cc)2]–[(mm2/s)2] |
| Entropy | ||
| Kurtosis | ||
| Maximum [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Mean [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Mean absolute deviation [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Median [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Minimum [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Range [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Root mean square (RMS) [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Skewness | ||
| Standard deviation [g/cc]–[mm2/s] | ||
| Uniformity | ||
| Variance[(g/cc)2]–[(mm2/s)2] | ||
| Shape- and size-based features | PET/MR | Surface area [cm2] |
| Spherical disproportion | ||
| Sphericity | ||
| Surface to volume ratio [cm−1] |
Fig. 1Procedure for the semi-automated extraction of the lesion functional volume from MR ADC maps. a The user draws a 3D rectangular box on the lesion on DCE subtraction images; b the enhanced tissue is segmented; c the DCE binary mask of the enhanced tissue is generated; d the DCE binary mask is applied on DWI b0 images; e the DCE binary mask is applied on the ADC maps; f a three compartment k-means algorithm is applied on signal intensity to classify DWI b0 images; g the DWI b0 binary masks is generated by excluding low signal (compartment 1—noise, fat, and fibrous tissue); h a three compartment k-means algorithm is applied on signal intensity to classify ADC maps; i the ADC binary masks is generated by excluding high signal (compartment 3—cyst, necrosis, fluid, normal tissue, and noise); l the probable spatial extension of high cellularity V ADC is the overlap between the DWI b0 and the ADC binary masks
Fig. 2Working strategy: image segmentation, features extraction, and statistical analysis
Histological/immunohistochemical data for the patient population
| Histopathological index | Frequency (%) | Mean ± | Range (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histological type | IDC | 100 | ||
| Histological grade | G1 | 3 | ||
| G2 | 13 | |||
| G3 | 55 | |||
| G not available | 29 | |||
| ER | Positive (>0%) | 47 | 71 ± 31 | 0–90 |
| Negative (<0%) | 53 | 0 ± 0 | ||
| PR | Positive (>0%) | 39 | 38 ± 38 | 0–80 |
| Negative (<0%) | 61 | 0 ± 0 | ||
| c-erbB-2 | Positive (Score 3+/Score 2+ FISH positive) | 21 | ||
| Negative | 79 | |||
| Molecular subtype | Luminal A | 24 | ||
| Luminal B | 21 | |||
| Triple Negative/basal-like | 42 | |||
| HER2+ | 13 | |||
| MiB-1 | Positive (≥18%) | 81 | 44 ± 15 | 4–80 |
| Negative (<18%) | 19 | 15 ± 4 | ||
Fig. 3Statistical correlations between PET and MR macroscopic and textural features (p values from Spearman correlation test)
Fig. 4Statistical correlations between PET textural features and histological/immunohistochemical data (* = p values obtained by Mann–Whitney test, **p values obtained by Kruskal–Wallis test)
Fig. 5Statistical correlations among ADC map textural features and histological/immunohistochemical data (* = p values obtained by Mann–Whitney test, **p values obtained by Kruskal–Wallis test)
Fig. 6Statistical correlations between PET (left) and MR (right) image features and pCR (p values obtained by the Mann–Whitney test)