| Literature DB >> 28797063 |
Choong Guen Chee1, Young Hoon Kim1, Kyoung Ho Lee1, Yoon Jin Lee1, Ji Hoon Park1, Hye Seung Lee2, Soyeon Ahn3, Bohyoung Kim4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of computed tomography (CT) texture features of locally advanced rectal cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) response and disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28797063 PMCID: PMC5552251 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Patient flow diagram.
Fig 2Texture analysis.
(a) Manually outlining and filtering out the pixels with attenuation under -50 HU in locally advanced rectal cancer in 76-year-old man. (b) Corresponding images in the same patient applying LoG filters with fine, medium, and coarse filter values.
Patient characteristics (n = 95).
| Characteristic | Data | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (y)—mean ± standard deviation | 60.8 ± 11.6 | |
| Male | 61.1 ± 11.9 | |
| Female | 60.2 ± 11.2 | |
| Male | 59 (62.1%) | |
| Clinical staging according to CT findings | ||
| I | 2 (2.1%) | |
| II | 14 (14.7%) | |
| III | 79 (83.2%) | |
| IV | 0 (0.0%) | |
| CT machine | ||
| 16 channel | 15 (15.8%) | |
| 64 channel | 80 (84.2%) | |
| CCRT regimen | ||
| XELOX | 45 (47.4%) | |
| FOLFOX | 46 (48.4%) | |
| Cetuximab/Irino/Xeloda | 4 (4.2%) | |
| Pathologic response | ||
| Grade 1 | 17 (17.9%) | |
| Grade 2 | 46 (48.4%) | |
| Grade 3 | 18 (19.0%) | |
| Grade 4 | 14 (14.7%) | |
| Tumor recurrence | 18 (18.9%) | |
a Two patients were considered to have locally advanced cancer, according to the MRI findings.
Results of texture feature analysis.
| Filter Values | Entropy | Uniformity | Kurtosis | Skewness | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No filtration | 6.76 ± 0.35 | 0.0113 ± 0.0027 | 0.87 ±1.73 | -0.24 ± 0.62 | 30.52 ± 9.51 |
| 1.0 (fine) | 7.26 ± 0.24 | 0.0079 ± 0.0015 | 1.66 ± 0.55 | 0.55 ± 0.62 | 44.64 ± 9.15 |
| 1.5 (medium) | 6.85 ± 0.26 | 0.0107 ± 0.0020 | 0.95 ± 0.84 | 0.04 ± 0.50 | 32.18 ± 6.48 |
| 2.0 (medium) | 6.58 ± 0.28 | 0.0129 ± 0.0026 | 0.89 ± 1.02 | -0.52 ± 0.41 | 26.70 ± 5.41 |
| 2.5 (coarse) | 6.45 ± 0.28 | 0.0142 ± 0.0031 | 1.05 ± 1.24 | -0.81 ± 0.38 | 25.05 ± 4.96 |
Note: Data are mean ± standard deviation.
Texture features of non-responder versus responder group after CRT without filtration and for various filter scale values depicting fine, medium, and coarse textures.
| Non-responder | Responder | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entropy | 6.84 ± 0.37 | 6.59 ± 0.22 | < 0.001 | |
| Uniformity | 0.0107 ± 0.0027 | 0.0125 ± 0.0021 | < 0.001 | |
| Kurtosis | 0.96 ± 2.03 | 0.71 ± 0.86 | 0.513 | |
| Skewness | -0.08 ± 0.69 | -0.55 ± 0.29 | < 0.001 | |
| Standard deviation | 32.80 ± 10.70 | 26.02 ± 3.71 | < 0.001 | |
| Entropy | 7.30 ± 0.20 | 7.18 ± 0.32 | 0.032 | |
| Uniformity | 0.0076 ± 0.0012 | 0.0084 ± 0.0018 | 0.026 | |
| Kurtosis | 1.65 ± 2.17 | 1.66 ± 1.82 | 0.973 | |
| Skewness | 0.61 ± 0.58 | 0.44 ± 0.67 | 0.206 | |
| Standard deviation | 46.02 ± 8.75 | 41.91 ± 9.45 | 0.038 | |
| Entropy | 6.89 ± 0.25 | 6.77 ± 0.25 | 0.032 | |
| Uniformity | 0.0104 ± 0.0019 | 0.0113 ± 0.0019 | 0.034 | |
| Kurtosis | 0.90 ± 0.82 | 1.05 ± 0.88 | 0.395 | |
| Skewness | 0.10 ± 0.47 | -0.08 ± 0.55 | 0.094 | |
| Standard deviation | 33.12 ± 6.54 | 30.34 ± 6.04 | 0.048 | |
| Entropy | 6.62 ± 0.28 | 6.50 ± 0.27 | 0.052 | |
| Uniformity | 0.0125 ± 0.0026 | 0.0136 ± 0.0026 | 0.07 | |
| Kurtosis | 0.74 ± 0.95 | 1.18 ± 1.12 | 0.047 | |
| Skewness | -0.45 ± 0.40 | -0.66 ± 0.40 | 0.017 | |
| Standard deviation | 27.36 ± 5.51 | 25.42 ± 5.06 | 0.1 | |
| Entropy | 6.48 ± 0.28 | 6.38 ± 0.29 | 0.111 | |
| Uniformity | 0.0138 ± 0.0030 | 0.0148 ± 0.0032 | 0.13 | |
| Kurtosis | 0.88 ± 1.18 | 1.38 ± 1.31 | 0.061 | |
| Skewness | -0.75 ± 0.40 | -0.92 ± 0.33 | 0.042 | |
| Standard deviation | 25.52 ± 5.00 | 24.12 ± 4.80 | 0.194 | |
† P value < 0.05
Note: Data are mean ± standard deviation.
Fig 3Kaplan–Meier curves according to texture features.
Kaplan-Meier curves without filtration showed a significant difference in DFS for (a) entropy, (b) uniformity, and (c) standard deviation.
Spearman rank correlation for texture features without filtration.
| Entropy | Uniformity | Kurtosis | Skewness | Standard Deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entropy | … | -0.98 (<0.001) | 0.21 (0.044) | 0.70 (<0.001) | 0.93 (<0.001) |
| Uniformity | -0.98 (<0.001) | … | -0.12 (0.267) | -0.66 (<0.001) | -0.86 (<0.001) |
| Kurtosis | 0.21 (0.044) | -0.12 (0.267) | … | 0.51 (<0.001) | 0.35 (0.001) |
| Skewness | 0.70 (<0.001) | -0.66 (<0.001) | 0.51 (<0.001) | … | 0.76 (<0.001) |
| Standard deviation | 0.93 (<0.001) | -0.86 (<0.001) | 0.35 (0.001) | 0.76 (<0.001) | … |
Note: Data in parentheses are P values.
Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of texture features with CT stage and age as dependent covariate.
| Entropy | 3.15 | 1.23, 8.07 | 0.017 |
| Age | 1.04 | 1.00, 1.09 | 0.037 |
| CT stage | 3.70 | 0.84, 16.3 | 0.083 |
| Uniformity | 0.33 | 0.12, 0.90 | 0.03 |
| Age | 1.05 | 1.00, 1.09 | 0.033 |
| CT stage | 3.44 | 0.78, 15.13 | 0.102 |
| Standard deviation | 2.54 | 1.06, 6.09 | 0.036 |
| Age | 1.04 | 1.00, 1.09 | 0.036 |
| CT stage | 3.66 | 0.83, 16.14 | 0.086 |
a Two patients with clinical stage I were merged to stage II, due to its small patient size.