Yin Xi1, Qing Yuan1, Yue Zhang1, Ananth J Madhuranthakam1,2, Michael Fulkerson1, Vitaly Margulis3,4, James Brugarolas4,5, Payal Kapur3,4,6, Jeffrey A Cadeddu3,4, Ivan Pedrosa7,8,9. 1. Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, 75235-9085, USA. 2. Advanced Imaging Research Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Kidney Cancer Program, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, Texas, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, 75235-9085, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu. 8. Advanced Imaging Research Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu. 9. Kidney Cancer Program, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To apply a statistical clustering algorithm to combine information from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into a single tumour map to distinguish high-grade from low-grade T1b clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: This prospective, Institutional Review Board -approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -compliant study included 18 patients with solid T1b ccRCC who underwent pre-surgical DCE MRI. After statistical clustering of the parametric maps of the transfer constant between the intravascular and extravascular space (K trans ), rate constant (K ep ) and initial area under the concentration curve (iAUC) with a fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithm, each tumour was segmented into three regions (low/medium/high active areas). Percentages of each region and tumour size were compared to tumour grade at histopathology. A decision-tree model was constructed to select the best parameter(s) to predict high-grade ccRCC. RESULTS: Seven high-grade and 11 low-grade T1b ccRCCs were included. High-grade histology was associated with higher percent high active areas (p = 0.0154) and this was the only feature selected by the decision tree model, which had a diagnostic performance of 78% accuracy, 86% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 67% positive predictive value and 89% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The FCM integrates multiple DCE-derived parameter maps and identifies tumour regions with unique pharmacokinetic characteristics. Using this approach, a decision tree model using criteria beyond size to predict tumour grade in T1b ccRCCs is proposed. KEY POINTS: • Tumour size did not correlate with tumour grade in T1b ccRCC. • Tumour heterogeneity can be analysed using statistical clustering via DCE-MRI parameters. • High-grade ccRCC has a larger percentage of high active area than low-grade ccRCCs. • A decision-tree model offers a simple way to differentiate high/low-grade ccRCCs.
OBJECTIVES: To apply a statistical clustering algorithm to combine information from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into a single tumour map to distinguish high-grade from low-grade T1b clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: This prospective, Institutional Review Board -approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -compliant study included 18 patients with solid T1b ccRCC who underwent pre-surgical DCE MRI. After statistical clustering of the parametric maps of the transfer constant between the intravascular and extravascular space (K trans ), rate constant (K ep ) and initial area under the concentration curve (iAUC) with a fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithm, each tumour was segmented into three regions (low/medium/high active areas). Percentages of each region and tumour size were compared to tumour grade at histopathology. A decision-tree model was constructed to select the best parameter(s) to predict high-grade ccRCC. RESULTS: Seven high-grade and 11 low-grade T1b ccRCCs were included. High-grade histology was associated with higher percent high active areas (p = 0.0154) and this was the only feature selected by the decision tree model, which had a diagnostic performance of 78% accuracy, 86% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 67% positive predictive value and 89% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The FCM integrates multiple DCE-derived parameter maps and identifies tumour regions with unique pharmacokinetic characteristics. Using this approach, a decision tree model using criteria beyond size to predict tumour grade in T1b ccRCCs is proposed. KEY POINTS: • Tumour size did not correlate with tumour grade in T1b ccRCC. • Tumour heterogeneity can be analysed using statistical clustering via DCE-MRI parameters. • High-grade ccRCC has a larger percentage of high active area than low-grade ccRCCs. • A decision-tree model offers a simple way to differentiate high/low-grade ccRCCs.
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Ivan Pedrosa; Mary T Chou; Long Ngo; Ronaldo H Baroni; Elizabeth M Genega; Laura Galaburda; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Sinha; F A Lucas-Quesada; N D DeBruhl; J Sayre; D Farria; D P Gorczyca; L W Bassett Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1997 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tae Young Shin; Jongchan Kim; Kyo Chul Koo; Sey Kiat Lim; Dong Wook Kim; Min Woong Kang; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi; Won Sik Ham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Maxine Sun; Firas Abdollah; Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Claudio Jeldres; Rodolphe Thuret; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Patrick E Teloken; R Houston Thompson; Satish K Tickoo; Angel Cronin; Caroline Savage; Victor E Reuter; Paul Russo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mike Notohamiprodjo; Michael Staehler; Nicole Steiner; Felix Schwab; Steven P Sourbron; Henrik J Michaely; Andreas D Helck; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Thais C Mussi; Sooah Kim; Afshan A Ahmad; Sean D Raj; John McMenamy; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Berthold Kiefer; Atilla P Kiraly Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Durgesh K Dwivedi; Yin Xi; Payal Kapur; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Matthew A Lewis; Durga Udayakumar; Robert Rasmussen; Qing Yuan; Aditya Bagrodia; Vitaly Margulis; Michael Fulkerson; James Brugarolas; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 2.872