| Literature DB >> 28629416 |
Armin Eilaghi1,2, Sameer Baig1, Yucheng Zhang1, Junjie Zhang1, Paul Karanicolas3, Steven Gallinger4,5,6, Farzad Khalvati1, Masoom A Haider7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess whether CT-derived texture features predict survival in patients undergoing resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Entities:
Keywords: Dissimilarity; Inverse Difference Normalized; Overall Survival Prediction; Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma; Texture Features
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28629416 PMCID: PMC5477257 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-017-0209-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Representative patients contoured for tumor (purple line) and pancreas gland (cyan line) with specific survival and textural features shown on top of each panel. Both patients underwent a whipple procedure with vascular resection. a Patient with low survival time (6 months). b Patient with relatively high survival time (71 months)
Grey level co-occurrence texture features. All summations are over all (i,j) pairs
| Parameter | Mathematical definition |
|---|---|
| Uniformity |
|
| Entropy |
|
| Dissimilarity |
|
| Inverse Difference Normalized |
|
| Correlation |
|
Demographic information of studied cohort
| Age (years) | Mean ± Standard deviation | 69 ± 8 |
| Sex | Female/Male/Total | 13/17/30 |
| Vascular resection | Yes/No/Total | 15/15/30 |
| Size (cm2) | Mean ± Standard Deviation | 2.13 ± 1.88 |
| Grade | G1/G2/G3/Total | 3/19/8/30 |
| Nodes Sampled (Per Patient) | Mean ± Standard Deviation | 25 ± 11 |
| Patients with Negative/Positive Nodes | N0/N1 | 6/24 |
| Margin | R2/R1/R0 | 0/16/14 |
| Survival Time (months) | Mean ± Standard Deviation | 31 ± 25 |
Nodes Sampled is the number of nodes taken from each patient. Patients with Negative Nodes is the number of patients whose sampled nodes were all negative. Patients with Positive Nodes is the number of patients who had at least one positive sampled node
Comparison of normal and tumor tissues (Entries in bold were significant)
| Texture feature | Tumor tissue median (interquartile range) | Normal tissue median (interquartile range) | Tumor vs Normal comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uniformity | 0.181 (0.165–0.192) | 0.210 (0.189–0.225) |
|
| Entropy | {−0.758 (−0.987-0.681)} × 10−3 | {−0.611 (−0.746-0.508)} × 10−3 |
|
| Dissimilarity | 0.286 (0.249–0.311) | 0.270 (0.223–0.304) | 0.530 |
| Correlation | 0.393 (0.267–0.464) | 0.486 (0.430–0.591) |
|
| Inverse Difference Normalized | 0.859 (0.845–0.877) | 0.866 (0.849–0.889) | 0.511 |
| Mean Intensity | 55.988 (41.099–62.617) | 70.255 (60.452–81.506) |
|
Cox regression for survival analysis using texture features and size of tumor (Entries in bold were significant)
| Parameter | B value | Standard error | Wald |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniformity | −105.5 | 109.2 | 0.93 | 0.334 |
| Entropy | 0.3240 | 0.333 | 0.95 | 0.330 |
| Dissimilarity |
|
|
|
|
| Correlation | 4.013 | 2.195 | 3.34 | 0.068 |
| Inverse Difference Normalized |
|
|
|
|
| Tumor Size | 0.000627 | 0.00123 | 0.26 | 0.611 |
| Tumor Intensity | −0.011 | 0.013 | 0.82 | 0.366 |
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier plot of cumulative survival for a) dissimilarity and b) inverse difference normalized
Receiver operating characteristic analysis of texture features and size for predicting survival outcome (Entries in bold were found significant)
| Parameter | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | Threshold | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniformity | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.560 | 0.002 | 0.230–0.650 | 0.576 |
| Entropy | 0.6 | 0.533 | 0.569 | 5.901 | 0.360–0.778 | 0.520 |
| Dissimilarity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Correlation | 0.533 | 0.733 | 0.68 | 0.610 | 0.484–0.875 | 0.093 |
| Inverse Difference Normalized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tumor Size | 0.533 | 0.533 | 0.538 | 154.761 | 0.326–0.750 | 0.724 |
| Tumor intensity | 0.533 | 0.533 | 0.524 | 58.462 | 0.313–0.736 | 0.820 |
Fig. 3Histograms of significant features a) dissimilarity and b) inverse difference normalized. The figure also illustrates the distribution of survival across the features values