| Literature DB >> 30728073 |
Zhan Feng1, Qijun Shen2, Ying Li3, Zhengyu Hu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the image heterogeneity of clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (ccRCC) by computer tomography texture analysis and to provide new objective quantitative imaging parameters for the pre-operative prediction of Fuhrman-grade ccRCC.Entities:
Keywords: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; Computed tomography; Fuhrman grade; Heterogeneity; Texture analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30728073 PMCID: PMC6364463 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0195-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1CT texture analysis to evaluate a clear-cell renal cell carcinoma(ccRCC). a Axial CT images of ccRCC texture feature before filtering, ROI was created within the confines of the tumor for texture analysis. b ccRCC texture feature after fine-scale filtering. c ccRCC texture feature after coarse-scale filtering
CCTA Parameters of low and high grade clear cell renal cell carcinomas
| Parameter | Grade I–II | Grade III-IV | Adjusted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corticomedullary phase | ||||
| Mean grey-level intensity | ||||
| No filtration | 93.95 ± 36.49 | 81.99 ± 30.21 | 0.14 | 0.29 |
| Fine filtration | −0.43 ± 0.23 | − 0.35 ± 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.37 |
| Coarse filtration | −0.59 ± 0.37 | −0.47 ± 0.34 | 0.30 | 0.43 |
| Standard deviation | ||||
| No filtration | 39.17 ± 18.27 | 32.18 ± 15.78 | 0.26 | 0.37 |
| Fine filtration | 6.29 ± 2.45 | 4.89 ± 3.11 | 0.10 | 0.26 |
| Coarse filtration | 2.43 ± 1.29 | 1.59 ± 1.03 | 0.04* | 0.17 |
| Kurtosis | ||||
| No filtration | 5.43 ± 8.31 | 10.21 ± 19.33 | 0.18 | 0.32 |
| Fine filtration | 5.29 ± 3.99 | 8.12 ± 4.21 | 0.30 | 0.37 |
| Coarse filtration | 4.89 ± 4.72 | 10.24 ± 15.19 | 0.04* | 0.17 |
| Skewness | ||||
| No filtration | −0.11 ± 0.58 | − 0.06 ± 0.64 | 0.87 | 0.90 |
| Fine filtration | −0.26 ± 0.61 | −0.28 ± 0.69 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| Coarse filtration | −0.56 ± 0.54 | −0.62 ± 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.74 |
| Entropy | ||||
| No filtration | 6.92 ± 0.43 | 6.76 ± 0.60 | 0.18 | 0.32 |
| Fine filtration | 4.73 ± 0.23 | 4.53 ± 0.29 | 0.003* | 0.04* |
| Coarse filtration | 3.10 ± 0.40 | 2.80 ± 0.52 | 0.007* | 0.05 |
| Nephrographic phase | ||||
| Mean grey-level intensity | ||||
| No filtration | 84.33 ± 23.53 | 75.55 ± 18.81 | 0.09 | 0.26 |
| Fine filtration | −0.28 ± 0.21 | −0.20 ± 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.37 |
| Coarse filtration | −0.40 ± 0.35 | −0.32 ± 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.43 |
| Standard deviation | ||||
| No filtration | 24.97 ± 17.94 | 19.36 ± 13.85 | 0.29 | 0.38 |
| Fine filtration | 4.82 ± 2.54 | 3.39 ± 2.34 | 0.13 | 0.29 |
| Coarse filtration | 1.72 ± 1.40 | 1.31 ± 0.69 | 0.08 | 0.26 |
| Kurtosis | ||||
| No filtration | 6.25 ± 8.66 | 4.97 ± 4.41 | 0.12 | 0.29 |
| Fine filtration | 5.14 ± 7.53 | 9.50 ± 11.83 | 0.18 | 0.33 |
| Coarse filtration | 5.66 ± 4.67 | 7.48 ± 9.72 | 0.02* | 0.15 |
| Skewness | ||||
| No filtration | −0.46 ± 1.26 | 0.09 ± 1.88 | 0.13 | 0.30 |
| Fine filtration | −0.22 ± 0.73 | −0.94 ± 2.40 | 0.19 | 0.32 |
| Coarse filtration | −0.56 ± 0.81 | −0.93 ± 1.60 | 0.20 | 0.33 |
| Entropy | ||||
| No filtration | 6.52 ± 0.36 | 6.44 ± 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.44 |
| Fine filtration | 4.60 ± 0.22 | 4.29 ± 0.29 | 0.006* | 0.04* |
| Coarse filtration | 2.76 ± 0.32 | 2.37 ± 0.21 | 0.001* | 0.03* |
*P < 0.05
Accuracy of CTTA predictive performance under different filters
| Parameter | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Cutoff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corticomedullary phase | ||||
| Entropy(fine) | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 4.66 |
| Nephrographic phase | ||||
| Entropy(fine) | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.54 | 4.27 |
| Entropy(Coarse) | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 2.55 |
Fig. 2ROC analysis of entropy values. The corticomedullary phase entropy (fine filtration) is blue. The entropy (fine filtration) of the nephrographic phase is red. The nephrographic phase entropy (coarse filtration) is green