| Literature DB >> 31850209 |
Hassan Bagher-Ebadian1, Branislava Janic1, Chang Liu1, Milan Pantelic2, David Hearshen2, Mohamed Elshaikh1, Benjamin Movsas1, Indrin J Chetty1, Ning Wen1.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify and rank discriminant radiomics features extracted from MR multi-modal images to construct an adaptive model for characterization of Dominant Intra-prostatic Lesions (DILs) from normal prostatic gland tissues (NT). Methods and Materials: Two cohorts were retrospectively studied: Group A consisted of 98 patients and Group B 19 patients. Two image modalities were acquired using a 3.0T MR scanner: Axial T2 Weighted (T2W) and axial diffusion weighted (DW) imaging. A linear regression method was used to construct apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps from DW images. DILs and the NT in the mirrored location were drawn on each modality. One hundred and sixty-eight radiomics features were extracted from DILs and NT. A Partial-Least-Squares-Correlation (PLSC) with one-way ANOVA along with bootstrapping ratio techniques were recruited to identify and rank the most discriminant latent variables. An artificial neural network (ANN) was constructed based on the optimal latent variable feature to classify the DILs and NTs. Nineteen patients were randomly chosen to test the contour variability effect on the radiomics analysis and the performance of the ANN. Finally, the trained ANN and a two dimension (2D) convolutional sampling method were combined and used to estimate DIL-NT probability map for two test cases.Entities:
Keywords: artifical neural network (ANN); intraprostatic lesion; multiparametric MRI (mpMRI); prostate cancer; radiomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31850209 PMCID: PMC6901911 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Gleason Grade Group and PSA level of PCa patients for the two groups are shown in the table.
| 1 | 30 | |
| 2 | 39 | |
| 3 | 19 | |
| 4 | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| 1 | 5 | |
| 2 | 7 | |
| 3 | 3 | |
| 4-5 | 4 | |
| <4 | 5 | |
| 4-10 | 8 | |
| 10–20 | 2 | |
| >20 | 4 |
The PSA levels are not available for group A.
Eight different radiomics feature categories along with a short explanation of each category is shown in this table.
| IBHF | 9 features | Nine features are extracted from histogram of the pixel intensity values: 1-Mean, 2-Standard Deviation, 3-Skewness, 4-Kurtosis, 5-Entropy, 6-Central Moment of 3rd order, 7- Central Moment of 4th Order, 8- Central Moment of 5th Order, 9- Central Moment of 6th Order. |
| GLRL | 7 features | Seven Gray Level Run Length texture descriptors were constructed based on the following emphasizes: Short Run Emphasis (SRE), Long Run Emphasis (LRE), Gray Level Non-Uniformity (GLN), Run Percentage (RP), Run Length Non-Uniformity (RLN), Low Gray Level Run Emphasis (LGRE), and High Gray Level Run Emphasis (HGRE). |
| LAWS | 18 features | Nine textural maps were constructed by filtering the image data using the following convolution kernels: L5 = [1 4 6 4 1], E5 = [−1 −2 0 2 1], S5 = [−1 0 2 0 −1], R5 = [1 −4 6 −4 1] and then, 18 LAWS textural features were computed by applying and combining the energy and entropy operators on these maps as following: L5E5/E5L5, L5R5/R5L5, E5S5/S5E5, S5S5, R5R5, L5S5/S5L5, E5E5, E5R5/R5E5, and S5R5/R5S5. |
| DOST | 18 features | The two-dimensional matrix of DOST coefficients was divided into nine equal segments and the energy and entropy of each segment was averaged over the tumor volume and eighteen features (nine energy along with nine entropy) were generated and used as the DOST radiomics features. |
| LBP | 6 features | Local Binary Pattern algorithm with a radial filter (eight-neighborhood) was used to generate a two-dimensional LBP map and Entropy, Entropy, Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the LBP maps were used as the six LBPF radiomics features. |
| 2DWT | 48 features | Two-dimensional Wavelet Transform with six decomposition levels for four different information attributes (Multi-resolution image, vertical, horizontal, and diagonal) was used to generate 24 maps of 2DWT information. Energy and entropy of the information maps were calculated and used as the 48 2DWT radiomics features. |
| 2DGF | 40 features | Two-dimensional Gabor (2DG) filter with five different scales for four different orientations generated 20 maps. Energy and entropy of the maps was averaged over the tumor volume and used as the 2DGT radiomics features. |
| GLCM | 22 features | Gray-Level-Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) was generated and the following 22 features were measured from the GLCM using an 8-bit depth quantization: 1-Autocorrelation, 2-Contrast, 3-Correlation (2), 4-Correlation (1), 5-Cluster Prominence, 6-Cluster Shade, 7-Dissimilarity, 8-Energy, 9-Entropy, 10-Homogeneity (1), 11-Homogeneity (2), 12-Maximum probability, 13-Sum of squares(Variance), 14-Sum average, 15-Sum variance, 16-Sum entropy, 17-Difference variance, 18-Difference entropy, 19-Information measure of correlation (1), 20-Information measure of correlation (2), 21-Inverse difference normalized, and 22-Inverse difference moment normalized. |
Figure 1The flowchart demonstrates different steps for the extraction of radiomics features from T2W images and ADC maps for DILs and normal tissues. As shown in this figure, for each MR modality, 168 radiomics features are extracted from normal and DIL volumes. The optimal feature set for the two MR modalities are identified using ANOVA applied on the latent variables generated by the PLSC technique for features with Silhouette coefficient of 0.5 and greater.
Figure 2This figure demonstrate three major phases as follows: Training, optimization, and evaluation phases for the ANN using the leave-one-out technique and area under correct classification fraction.
Feature ranking based on the PLSC and Bootstrapping techniques for the first 10 significant radiomic features of two MR modalities.
| 1 | T2WI | LBP_Energy | LBP | 21412.01 |
| 2 | ADC Map | LBP_Energy | LBP | 410.83 |
| 3 | T2WI | RLN | GLRL | 159.69 |
| 4 | ADC Map | RLN | GLRL | 70.32 |
| 5 | T2WI | GLN | GLRL | 35.29 |
| 6 | T2WI | HGRE | GLRL | 35.28 |
| 7 | ADC Map | DOST_ENTROPY_22 | DOST | 25.13 |
| 8 | ADC Map | ENG_GAB02 | 2DGF | 22.99 |
| 9 | ADC Map | LBP_KURTOSIS | LBP | 22.95 |
| 10 | T2WI | LBP -KURTOSIS | LBP | 22.92 |
Figure 3(A,B) Clusters of NTs and DILs for each latent variable are well-separated with less diffusivity. It confirms that the distribution of the identified latent variable (PLSC-ANOVA) in the feature space is well-matched to its own cluster (less scattered) and poorly diffused to its neighboring clusters for the MR modalities. (C,D) Show the results of the permutation tests for the inertia explained by the PLSC of T2WI and ADC map for 10,000 permutations. As shown in the subfigures, the observed value (shown by vertical arrows) were never obtained in the 10,000 permutations for both modalities. Therefore, it is concluded that PLSC extracted a significant amount of common variance between these two modalities with P < 0.0001.
Figure 4(A) Shows true positive plus true negative (TP+TN) of the optimal ANN (8:5:1) at different training epochs. (B) Shows true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative of the optimal ANN at different training epochs. (C) Demonstrates the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC, Az test) value for different ANN structures. As shown in this figure, the ANN with five neurons in its only hidden layer shows the highest performance and is chosen as the optimal ANN. (D) Shows the average ROC of the optimal ANN along with optimal-cut-point of the ANN.
Figure 5(A–D) Depict ROC curves corresponding to 100 iterations each corresponding to a different division of training and validation datasets for ANN for the T2WI latent variables number 1–4. (E–H) depict ROC curves corresponding to 100 iterations each corresponding to a different division of training and validation datasets for ANN for the ADC latent variables number 1–4. As shown in this figure for each modality, from left to right as the order of latent variable increases the information content or discrimination power of the variable for classification deceases. (I) illustrates a family of ROC curves for 100 iterations, each corresponding to a different division of training and validation datasets for ANN for all 8 latent variables. (J) shows the response of the trained ANN against an unseen/prospective dataset (trained with group A and tested with group B).
This table shows AUROC, NPV, and PPV values along with their confidence intervals measured for each individual latent variable for 100 iterations (each corresponding to a different division of training and validation datasets).
| First latent variable (T2WI) | 0.87 | 0.86–0.89 | 0.86 | 0.84–0.88 | 0.78 | 0.76–0.79 |
| Second latent variable (T2WI) | 0.79 | 0.72–0.85 | 0.84 | 0.78–0.90 | 0.71 | 0.68–0.74 |
| Third latent variable (T2WI) | 0.76 | 0.75–0.80 | 0.72 | 0.67 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.70–0.74 |
| Fourth latent variable (T2WI) | 0.66 | 0.64–0.68 | 0.58 | 0.57–0.60 | 0.69 | 0.65–0.73 |
| First latent variable (ADC) | 0.91 | 0.90–0.92 | 0.88 | 0.85–0.90 | 0.82 | 0.80–0.84 |
| Second latent variable (ADC) | 0.88 | 0.86–0.89 | 0.87 | 0.85–0.89 | 0.81 | 0.80–0.83 |
| Third latent variable (ADC) | 0.79 | 0.72–0.87 | 0.80 | 0.75–0.85 | 0.83 | 0.81–0.86 |
| Fourth latent variable (ADC) | 0.74 | 0.72–0.76 | 0.66 | 0.64–0.67 | 0.81 | 0.78–0.85 |
Figure 6(A–F) illustrate T2WI, ADC map, and lesion probability map for a slice of prostate gland for two different patients estimated by the trained PLSC-ANN using a 2D-convolutional sampling method (window size = 25 × 25).