| Literature DB >> 28801575 |
Laurent Dercle1,2,3, Samy Ammari4,5, Mathilde Bateson6, Paul Blanc Durand5, Eva Haspinger5, Christophe Massard5, Cyril Jaudet7, Andrea Varga5, Eric Deutsch8,9, Jean-Charles Soria5,9,10, Charles Ferté11,12,13.
Abstract
Entropy is a promising quantitative imaging biomarker for characterizing cancer imaging phenotype. Entropy has been associated with tumor gene expression, tumor metabolism, tumor stage, patient prognosis, and treatment response. Our hypothesis states that tumor-specific biomarkers such as entropy should be correlated between synchronous metastases. Therefore, a significant proportion of the variance of entropy should be attributed to the malignant process. We analyzed 112 patients with matched/paired synchronous metastases (SM#1 and SM#2) prospectively enrolled in the MOSCATO-01 clinical trial. Imaging features were extracted from Regions Of Interest (ROI) delineated on CT-scan using TexRAD software. We showed that synchronous metastasis entropy was correlated across 5 Spatial Scale Filters: Spearman's Rho ranged between 0.41 and 0.59 (P = 0.0001, Bonferroni correction). Multivariate linear analysis revealed that entropy in SM#1 is significantly associated with (i) primary tumor type; (ii) entropy in SM#2 (same malignant process); (iii) ROI area size; (iv) metastasis site; and (v) entropy in the psoas muscle (reference tissue). Entropy was a logarithmic function of ROI area in normal control tissues (aorta, psoas) and in mathematical models (P < 0.01). We concluded that entropy is a tumor-specific metric only if confounding factors are corrected.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28801575 PMCID: PMC5554130 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08310-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Comparing the imaging phenotype of paired biopsy-proven synchronous metastases. In each patient (n = 112), we compared the imaging phenotype of two biopsy-proven synchronous metastases (#1 vs. #2) from the same primary tumor and within the same organ. Patients (A–F) demonstrate the similarity of imaging phenotype between two synchronous metastases captured by trained radiologists (picture #1 and #2) and by TexRAD software (histogram #1 vs. #2).
Figure 2Comparing Entropy in paired synchronous metastases. Entropy is correlated between paired synchronous metastases across all SSFs (SM#1 vs. SM#2). We observed that larger differences in entropy were explained by larger differences in ROI area.
Multivariate linear analysis of the increase of entropy in synchronous metastases #1.
| Variable | Coefficient (estimate) | Significance (P Value) |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept (reference) | 1.96 | <10−5 |
| Entropy of synchronous metastasis #2 (malignant process) | 0.06 | <10−3 |
| ROI area of synchronous metastasis #1 (volume-dependence) | 0.65 | <10−5 |
| Entropy of psoas muscle (acquisition protocol) | 0.15 | <10−5 |
| Site of the metastasis | ||
| Lymph node | ||
| Liver | 0.12 | 0.03 |
| Lung | −0.08 | 0.17 |
| Viscera | 0.14 | 0.03 |
| Primary Tumor | ||
| Prostate | ||
| Urothelium | −0.15 | 0.08 |
| Lung or pleura | −0.20 | 0.02 |
| Digestive tract | −0.04 | 0.68 |
| Liver and bile ducts | 0.07 | 0.50 |
| ENT and thymus | −0.22 | 0.01 |
| Ovary, Uterus, Testicle | -0.11 | 0.22 |
| Breast | −0.15 | 0.19 |
| Pancreas | −0.23 | 0.03 |
| Other | −0.21 | 0.03 |
Multivariate linear analysis shows that entropy in SM#1 is a function of the ROI area of SM#1 (volume-dependence), the entropy of SM#2 (malignant pattern recognition), the entropy of the psoas muscle (acquisition protocol), the site of metastasis, and the primary tumor.
Figure 3Entropy is a logarithmic function of the area of the region of interest. (A,B and C) are graphs showing the entropy across all SSFs (A: ROI area from 0 to 12,000 pixels, B: zoom on ROI area smaller than 1,000 pixels) and for all SSF independently (C) in function of the area of the ROI in pixels within synchronous metastases #1. We observed that in every type of tissue (metastasis, normal psoas muscle, and blood in the aorta), entropy is a logarithmic function of the area of the ROI (P < 0.01, R2 = 0.47) rather than a linear one (P < 0.01, R2 = 0.14).
Figure 4Mathematical model evaluating the evolution of Entropy in function of the surface of the ROI and the impact of SSF. We calculated the entropy in function of the surface of the ROI. We defined the surface by the number of repetitions of the same 690 pixel ROI (i.e. ROI1original and ROI2original). ROI1original and ROI2original have the same distribution of pixel intensity coded 0, 1, 2, and 3 and are associated with a corresponding white - grey - black signal intensity. It shows that (i) entropy is identical in very different ROIs, and (ii) entropy calculated after Laplacian of Gaussian filtering (SSFa and b such as used by TexRAD) remains area dependent although it captures a different pixel spatial distribution between ROI1 and ROI2.
Figure 5Association between metastases’ entropy and patients’ overall survival. Kaplan Meier estimates show the cumulative overall survival in patients with low and high entropy (sample median entropy was used to define the high- and low- groups) according to different spatial scale filters (SSF2-6). The association between high entropy and OS changes across SSFs: this illustrates the problem of false positives due to type I error and publication bias retaining only positive results.