Monika Béresová1,2, Andrés Larroza3, Estanislao Arana4, József Varga5, László Balkay5, David Moratal6. 1. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Nagyerdei krt. 98, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary. beres.monika@med.unideb.hu. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. beres.monika@med.unideb.hu. 3. Department of Medicine, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain. 4. Department of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 6. Center for Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find structural differences between brain metastases of lung and breast cancer, computing their heterogeneity parameters by means of both 2D and 3D texture analysis (TA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 58 brain metastases from breast (26) and lung cancer (32) were examined by MR imaging. Brain lesions were manually delineated by 2D ROIs on the slices of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CET1) images, and local binary patterns (LBP) maps were created from each region. Histogram-based (minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and variance), and co-occurrence matrix-based (contrast, correlation, energy, entropy, and homogeneity) 2D, weighted average of the 2D slices, and true 3D TA were obtained on the CET1 images and LBP maps. RESULTS: For LBP maps and 2D TA contrast, correlation, energy, and homogeneity were identified as statistically different heterogeneity parameters (SDHPs) between lung and breast metastasis. The weighted 3D TA identified entropy as an additional SDHP. Only two texture indexes (TI) were significantly different with true 3D TA: entropy and energy. All these TIs discriminated between the two tumor types significantly by ROC analysis. For the CET1 images there was no SDHP at all by 3D TA. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the used textural analysis methods may help with discriminating between brain metastases of different primary tumors.
OBJECTIVE: To find structural differences between brain metastases of lung and breast cancer, computing their heterogeneity parameters by means of both 2D and 3D texture analysis (TA). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with 58 brain metastases from breast (26) and lung cancer (32) were examined by MR imaging. Brain lesions were manually delineated by 2D ROIs on the slices of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CET1) images, and local binary patterns (LBP) maps were created from each region. Histogram-based (minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and variance), and co-occurrence matrix-based (contrast, correlation, energy, entropy, and homogeneity) 2D, weighted average of the 2D slices, and true 3D TA were obtained on the CET1 images and LBP maps. RESULTS: For LBP maps and 2D TA contrast, correlation, energy, and homogeneity were identified as statistically different heterogeneity parameters (SDHPs) between lung and breast metastasis. The weighted 3D TA identified entropy as an additional SDHP. Only two texture indexes (TI) were significantly different with true 3D TA: entropy and energy. All these TIs discriminated between the two tumor types significantly by ROC analysis. For the CET1 images there was no SDHP at all by 3D TA. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the used textural analysis methods may help with discriminating between brain metastases of different primary tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain neoplasms; Breast cancer; Computer-assisted; Image processing; Lung cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastasis; Texture analysis
Authors: D Balériaux; C Colosimo; J Ruscalleda; M Korves; G Schneider; K Bohndorf; G Bongartz; M A van Buchem; M Reiser; K Sartor; M W Bourne; P M Parizel; G R Cherryman; I Salerio; A La Noce; G Pirovano; M A Kirchin; A Spinazzi Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: W T Yuh; D J Fisher; V M Runge; S W Atlas; S E Harms; K R Maravilla; N A Mayr; J E Mollman; A C Price Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bihong T Chen; Taihao Jin; Ningrong Ye; Isa Mambetsariev; Ebenezer Daniel; Tao Wang; Chi Wah Wong; Russell C Rockne; Rivka Colen; Andrei I Holodny; Sagus Sampath; Ravi Salgia Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Bihong T Chen; Taihao Jin; Ningrong Ye; Isa Mambetsariev; Tao Wang; Chi Wah Wong; Zikuan Chen; Russell C Rockne; Rivka R Colen; Andrei I Holodny; Sagus Sampath; Ravi Salgia Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Allan Felipe Fattori Alves; José Ricardo de Arruda Miranda; Fabiano Reis; Sergio Augusto Santana de Souza; Luciana Luchesi Rodrigues Alves; Laisson de Moura Feitoza; José Thiago de Souza de Castro; Diana Rodrigues de Pina Journal: J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis Date: 2020-09-04