Literature DB >> 33778684

Endometrial Carcinoma: Texture Analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps and Its Correlation with Histopathologic Findings and Prognosis.

Ichiro Yamada1, Naoyuki Miyasaka1, Daisuke Kobayashi1, Kimio Wakana1, Noriko Oshima1, Akira Wakabayashi1, Junichiro Sakamoto1, Yukihisa Saida1, Ukihide Tateishi1, Yoshinobu Eishi1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the feasibility of texture analysis (TA) of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps for predicting histologic grade (HG) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EMC). Materials and
Methods: One hundred twenty-one patients with EMC were examined by using a 1.5-T MRI system and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with b values of 0 and 1000 sec/mm2. Software with volumes of interest on ADC maps was used to extract 45 texture features including higher-order texture features. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of the random forest (RF) model and ADC values for HG and recurrence.
Results: Area under the curve (AUC) for predicting high-grade EMCs was significantly larger for RF model than for ADC values (0.967 vs 0.898; P = .0336). AUC for predicting recurrence was larger for the RF model than for ADC values (0.890 vs 0.875; P = .7248), although the difference was not significant. Mean RFS was significantly shorter for high-grade EMCs than for low-grade EMCs (P = .0002; hazard ratio, 4.9) and for ADC values less than or equal to 0.802 × 10-3 mm2/sec than for ADC values greater than 0.802 × 10-3 mm2/sec (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 32.9). RF model showed that the mean RFS was significantly shorter for the presence of recurrence than for its absence (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 94.7).
Conclusion: TA of ADC maps had significantly higher diagnostic performance than did ADC values for predicting HG and was a more useful indicator than HG and ADC values for predicting RFS in patients with EMC.Keywords: Comparative Studies, Genital/Reproductive, MR-Diffusion Weighted Imaging, MR-Imaging, Neoplasms-Primary, Pathology, Pelvis, Tissue Characterization, Uterus© RSNA, 2019. 2019 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 33778684      PMCID: PMC7983694          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2019190054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  40 in total

Review 1.  Texture analysis: a review of neurologic MR imaging applications.

Authors:  A Kassner; R E Thornhill
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  Endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Vivek Arora; Michael A Quinn
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.237

3.  Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient map of diffusion-weighted MRI in endometrial cancer: a preliminary correlation study with histological grade.

Authors:  Sungmin Woo; Jeong Yeon Cho; Sang Youn Kim; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters of endometrioid carcinoma.

Authors:  Chie Inoue; Shinya Fujii; Sachi Kaneda; Takeru Fukunaga; Toshio Kaminou; Junzo Kigawa; Tasuku Harada; Toshihide Ogawa
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with tumor grade, depth of myometrial invasion, and presence of lymph node metastases.

Authors:  Gilda Rechichi; Stefania Galimberti; Mauro Signorelli; Cammillo Talei Franzesi; Patrizia Perego; Maria Grazia Valsecchi; Sandro Sironi
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Endometrial Cancer: Combined MR Volumetry and Diffusion-weighted Imaging for Assessment of Myometrial and Lymphovascular Invasion and Tumor Grade.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Caroline Reinhold; Shaza S Alsharif; Helen Addley; Jocelyne Arceneau; Nicolas Molinari; Boris Guiu; Evis Sala
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Endometrial Carcinoma: MR Imaging-based Texture Model for Preoperative Risk Stratification-A Preliminary Analysis.

Authors:  Yoshiko Ueno; Behzad Forghani; Reza Forghani; Anthony Dohan; Xing Ziggy Zeng; Foucauld Chamming's; Jocelyne Arseneau; Lili Fu; Lucy Gilbert; Benoit Gallix; Caroline Reinhold
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Prognostic parameters of endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Jaime Prat
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 9.  Clinical evaluation of women with PMB. Is it always necessary an endometrial biopsy to be performed? A review of the literature.

Authors:  Marina Dimitraki; Panagiotis Tsikouras; Sophia Bouchlariotou; Alexandros Dafopoulos; Vasileios Liberis; Georgios Maroulis; Alexander Tobias Teichmann
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.344

10.  Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice?

Authors:  Fergus Davnall; Connie S P Yip; Gunnar Ljungqvist; Mariyah Selmi; Francesca Ng; Bal Sanghera; Balaji Ganeshan; Kenneth A Miles; Gary J Cook; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2012-10-24
View more
  2 in total

1.  Discriminating low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from non-low-grade DCIS or DCIS upgraded to invasive carcinoma: effective texture features on ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Naoko Mori; Hiroyuki Abe; Shunji Mugikura; Minoru Miyashita; Yu Mori; Yo Oguma; Minami Hirasawa; Satoko Sato; Kei Takase
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 4.239

2.  Novel Method for Early Prediction of Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions with a Machine Learning Algorithm Based on Risk Matrix Analysis in the NICU.

Authors:  Nadir Yalçın; Merve Kaşıkcı; Hasan Tolga Çelik; Karel Allegaert; Kutay Demirkan; Şule Yiğit; Murat Yurdakök
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.964

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.