Austin Ditmer1, Bin Zhang2, Taimur Shujaat3, Andrew Pavlina4, Nicholas Luibrand4, Mary Gaskill-Shipley4, Achala Vagal4. 1. University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. ditmerad@mail.uc.edu. 2. UC Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Medical Center, 333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Ohio State University, Room 460, 395 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 4. University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Texture analysis (TA) can quantify variations in surface intensity or patterns, including some that are imperceptible to the human visual system. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of radiomic based filtration-histogram TA to differentiate high-grade from low-grade gliomas by assessing tumor heterogeneity. METHODS: Patients with a histopathological diagnosis of glioma and preoperative 3T MRI imaging were included in this retrospective study. A region of interest was manually delineated on post-contrast T1 images. TA was performed using commercially available research software. The histogram parameters including mean, standard deviation, entropy, mean of the positive pixels, skewness, and kurtosis were analyzed at spatial scaling factors ranging from 0 to 6 mm. The parameters were correlated with WHO glioma grade using Spearman correlation. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated using ROC curve analysis to distinguish tumor grades. RESULTS: Of a total of 94 patients, 14 had low-grade gliomas and 80 had high-grade gliomas. Mean, SD, MPP, entropy and kurtosis each showed significant differences between glioma grades for different spatial scaling filters. Low and high-grade gliomas were best-discriminated using mean of 2 mm fine texture scale, with a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 86% (AUC of 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measurement of heterogeneity using TA can discriminate high versus low-grade gliomas. Radiomic data of texture features can provide complementary diagnostic information for gliomas.
PURPOSE: Texture analysis (TA) can quantify variations in surface intensity or patterns, including some that are imperceptible to the human visual system. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of radiomic based filtration-histogram TA to differentiate high-grade from low-grade gliomas by assessing tumor heterogeneity. METHODS:Patients with a histopathological diagnosis of glioma and preoperative 3T MRI imaging were included in this retrospective study. A region of interest was manually delineated on post-contrast T1 images. TA was performed using commercially available research software. The histogram parameters including mean, standard deviation, entropy, mean of the positive pixels, skewness, and kurtosis were analyzed at spatial scaling factors ranging from 0 to 6 mm. The parameters were correlated with WHO glioma grade using Spearman correlation. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated using ROC curve analysis to distinguish tumor grades. RESULTS: Of a total of 94 patients, 14 had low-grade gliomas and 80 had high-grade gliomas. Mean, SD, MPP, entropy and kurtosis each showed significant differences between glioma grades for different spatial scaling filters. Low and high-grade gliomas were best-discriminated using mean of 2 mm fine texture scale, with a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 86% (AUC of 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measurement of heterogeneity using TA can discriminate high versus low-grade gliomas. Radiomic data of texture features can provide complementary diagnostic information for gliomas.
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Mandeep Takhar; Yohann Tschudi; John C Ford; Gabriel Solórzano; Nicholas Erho; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Sanoj Punnen; Elai Davicioni; Robert J Gillies; Alan Pollack Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Vicky Goh; Henry C Mandeville; Quan Sing Ng; Peter J Hoskin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Manus J Donahue; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jinyuan Zhou; Martin G Pomper; John Laterra; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Marco Gerlinger; Andrew J Rowan; Stuart Horswell; James Larkin; David Endesfelder; Eva Gronroos; Pierre Martinez; Nicholas Matthews; Aengus Stewart; Charles Swanton; M Math; Patrick Tarpey; Ignacio Varela; Benjamin Phillimore; Sharmin Begum; Neil Q McDonald; Adam Butler; David Jones; Keiran Raine; Calli Latimer; Claudio R Santos; Mahrokh Nohadani; Aron C Eklund; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Graham Clark; Lisa Pickering; Gordon Stamp; Martin Gore; Zoltan Szallasi; Julian Downward; P Andrew Futreal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leland S Hu; Shuluo Ning; Jennifer M Eschbacher; Nathan Gaw; Amylou C Dueck; Kris A Smith; Peter Nakaji; Jonathan Plasencia; Sara Ranjbar; Stephen J Price; Nhan Tran; Joseph Loftus; Robert Jenkins; Brian P O'Neill; William Elmquist; Leslie C Baxter; Fei Gao; David Frakes; John P Karis; Christine Zwart; Kristin R Swanson; Jann Sarkaria; Teresa Wu; J Ross Mitchell; Jing Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Giovanni Muscas; Simone Orlandini; Eleonora Becattini; Francesca Battista; Victor E Staartjes; Carlo Serra; Alessandro Della Puppa Journal: Acta Neurochir Suppl Date: 2022
Authors: Soumen Khatua; Laurence J N Cooper; David I Sandberg; Leena Ketonen; Jason M Johnson; Michael E Rytting; Diane D Liu; Heather Meador; Prashant Trikha; Robin J Nakkula; Gregory K Behbehani; Dristhi Ragoonanan; Sumit Gupta; Aikaterini Kotrotsou; Tagwa Idris; Elizabeth J Shpall; Katy Rezvani; Rivka Colen; Wafik Zaky; Dean A Lee; Vidya Gopalakrishnan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Brandon P Galm; Colleen Buckless; Brooke Swearingen; Martin Torriani; Anne Klibanski; Miriam A Bredella; Nicholas A Tritos Journal: Pituitary Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.107