| Literature DB >> 29085671 |
Anton S Becker1, Soleen Ghafoor1, Magda Marcon1, Jose A Perucho2, Moritz C Wurnig1, Matthias W Wagner1, Pek-Lan Khong2, Elaine Yp Lee2, Andreas Boss1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Texture analysis in oncological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may yield surrogate markers for tumor differentiation and staging, both of which are important factors in the treatment planning for cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC); diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI); texture analysis; texture features
Year: 2017 PMID: 29085671 PMCID: PMC5648100 DOI: 10.1177/2058460117729574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Radiol Open
Summary of the MRI protocol.
| Sequences | T2W TSE | T2W SPAIR | T2 TSE | T2W TSE | DWI | CE T1W- THRIVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plane | Sagittal | Coronal | Axial | Oblique axial | Axial | 3D |
| TR/TE (ms) | 4000/80 | 3500/80 | 2800/100 | 2800/100 | 2000/54 | 03.01.04 |
| Turbo factor | 30 | 21 | 12 | 14 | NA | NA |
| Field of view (mm) | 240 × 240 | 230 × 230 | 402 × 300 | 220 × 220 | 406 × 300 | 370 × 203 | |||
| Matrix size | 480 × 298 | 352 × 300 | 787 × 600 | 316 × 311 | 168 × 124 | 248 × 134 | |||
| Slice thickness (mm) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1.5 |
| Intersection gap (mm) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bandwidth (Hz/pixel) | 230 | 186 | 169 | 162 | 15.3 | 724 |
| NEX | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Fig. 1.Exemplary ROI definition in a 43-year-old patient with a G2 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (FIGO stage IB2, T3aN1M0). The ROIs are color coded for better visibility: Blue = tumor, red = gluteal muscle, yellow = subcutaneous fat. The latter two ROIs are copies of the first one, identical in shape and size.
Texture features and abbreviations.
| Histogram-derived | GLCM | GLRLM | GLSZM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance | Contrast | Short run emphasis (SRE) | Small zone emphasis (SZE) |
| Skewness | Correlation | Long run emphasis (LRE) | Large zone emphasis (LZE) |
| Kurtosis | Energy | Gray-level non-uniformity (GLN) | Gray-level non-uniformity (GLN) |
| Entropy | Homogeneity | Run length non-uniformity (RLN) | Zone-size non-uniformity (ZSN) |
| Run percentage (RP) | Zone percentage (ZP) | ||
| Low gray-level run emphasis (LGRE) | Low gray-level zone emphasis (LGZE) | ||
| High gray-level run emphasis (HGRE) | High gray-level zone emphasis (HGZE) | ||
| Short run low gray-level emphasis (SRLGE) | Small zone low gray-level emphasis (SZLGE) | ||
| Short run high gray-level emphasis (SRHGE) | Small zone high gray-level emphasis (SZHGE) | ||
| Long run low gray-level emphasis (LRLGE) | Large zone low gray-level emphasis (LZLGE) | ||
| Long run high gray-level emphasis (LRHGE) | Large zone high gray-level emphasis (LZHGE) | ||
| Gray-level variance (GLV) | |||
| Zone size variance (ZSV) | |||
GLCM, gray-level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, gray-level run-length matrix; GLSZM, gray-level size-zone matrix.
Fig. 2.Schematic of feature extraction from an exemplary ROI. The first order features are directly derived from the histogram of the ROI content, while the higher-order features are computed from the respective gray-level matrices.
One-way ANOVA (P values) of all tissues with the ROI size.
| Tumor | Muscle | Fat | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skewness | 0.49 | 0.94 | 0.63 |
| Kurtosis | 0.82 | 0.12 | 0.78 |
| Entropy | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.77 |
| Contrast (GLCM) | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Energy (GLCM) | 0.85 | 0.97 | 0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SRE (GLRLM) | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.11 |
| LRE (GLRLM) | 0.95 | 0.84 | 0.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RP (GLRLM) | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
| HGRE (GLRLM) | 0.86 | 0.65 | 0.33 |
| SRLGE (GLRLM) | 0.01 | 0.42 | 0.55 |
| SRHGE (GLRLM) | 0.86 | 0.54 | 0.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
| LRHGE (GLRLM) | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.24 |
| SZE (GLSZM) | 0.99 | 0.69 | 0.04 |
| LZE (GLSZM) | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.66 |
| GLN (GLSZM) | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
| ZSN (GLSZM) | 0.93 | 0.68 | 0.02 |
| ZP (GLSZM) | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
| HGZE (GLSZM) | 0.95 | 0.41 | 0.26 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SZHGE (GLSZM) | 0.95 | 0.39 | 0.36 |
| LZLGE (GLSZM) | 0.01 | 0.47 | 0.64 |
| LZHGE (GLSZM) | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.68 |
| GLV (GLSZM) | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Confounded features are highlighted in italics (P < 0.01).
Spearman correlation testing (P values) of the relevant features.
| Feature | Tumor grade | Tumor type | FIGO stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.32 |
| Skewness | 0.56 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| Kurtosis | 0.93 | 0.20 | 0.78 |
| Entropy | 0.05 | 0.69 | 0.95 |
| Contrast (GLCM) | 0.27 | 0.19 | 0.21 |
| Correlation (GLCM) | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.28 |
| Homogeneity (GLCM) | 0.11 | 0.40 | 0.42 |
| SRE (GLRLM) | 0.08 | 0.78 | 0.57 |
| LRE (GLRLM) | 0.06 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| RP (GLRLM) | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.50 |
| LGRE (GLRLM) | 0.23 | 0.70 | 0.84 |
| HGRE (GLRLM) | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.58 |
| SRLGE (GLRLM) | 0.34 | 0.80 | 0.78 |
| SRHGE (GLRLM) | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.59 |
|
|
| 0.34 | 0.41 |
|
|
| 0.92 | 0.56 |
| LZE (GLSZM) | 0.06 | 0.58 | 0.49 |
| GLN (GLSZM) | 0.10 | 0.60 | 0.69 |
| ZSN (GLSZM) | 0.05 | 0.90 | 0.54 |
|
|
| 0.73 | 0.48 |
| HGZE (GLSZM) | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.66 |
| SZHGE (GLSZM) | 0.22 | 0.85 | 0.63 |
| LZHGE (GLSZM) | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.31 |
| GLV (GLSZM) | 0.08 | 0.98 | 0.84 |
Fig. 3.Correlation matrix of the texture features, showing significant co-correlations of several features (ordered by hierarchical clustering for better visibility): For example, ZP and SZE (6th and 7th from the bottom) correlate positively with each other, and negatively LRHGE (5th from the top). These three features may thus reflect the same (unknown) underlying biological difference.
Fig. 4.Boxplot of two texture features which independently correlate with tumor differentiation: LRHGE (ϱ = 0.53, P = 0.03) and entropy (ϱ = 0.49, P = 0.05).
Fig. 5.Calculated entropy-maps of two patients: 46-year-old patient with a well-differentiated (G1) squamous cell carcinoma (top) exhibiting comparably low intratumoral entropy compared to a 52-year-old patient with a poorly differentiated (G3) adenocarcinoma (bottom).