CT texture analysis of tonsil cancer: Discrimination from normal palatine tonsils.

The purposes of the study were to determine whether there are differences in texture analysis parameters between tonsil cancers and normal tonsils, and to correlate texture analysis with 18F-FDG PET/CT to investigate the relationship between texture analysis and metabolic parameters. Sixty-four patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the palatine tonsil were included. A ROI was drawn, including all slices, to involve the entire tumor. The contralateral normal tonsil was used for comparison with the tumors. Texture analysis parameters, mean, standard deviation (SD), entropy, mean positive pixels, skewness, and kurtosis were obtained using commercially available software. Parameters were compared between the tumor and the normal palatine tonsils. Comparisons were also performed among early tonsil cancer, advanced tonsil cancer, and normal tonsils. An ROC curve analysis was performed to assess discrimination of tumor from normal tonsils. Correlation between texture analysis and 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed. Compared to normal tonsils, the tumors showed a significantly lower mean, higher SD, higher entropy, lower skewness, and higher kurtosis on most filters (p<0.001). On comparisons among normal tonsils, early cancers, and advanced tonsil cancers, SD and entropy showed significantly higher values on all filters (p<0.001) between early cancers and normal tonsils. The AUC from the ROC analysis was 0.91, obtained from the entropy. A mild correlation was shown between texture parameters and metabolic parameters. The texture analysis parameters, especially entropy, showed significant differences in contrast-enhanced CT results between tumor and normal tonsils, and between early tonsil cancers and normal tonsils. Texture analysis can be useful as an adjunctive tool for the diagnosis of tonsil cancers.

Introduction

Palatine tonsils are lymphoid tissues that comprise the anterior tonsillar pillar, tonsillar fossa, and posterior tonsillar pillar [1, 2]. Squamous cell carcinoma accounts for about 90% of tonsil cancer [3]. Patients with advanced tonsil cancer usually present with large oropharyngeal masses and cervical nodal metastasis. However, early tonsil cancer sometimes can be difficult to identify on contrast-enhanced CT because it can have the same appearance as normal lymphoid tissue [4]. Accordingly, the detection of tonsil cancer can be difficult on conventional CT. Therefore, preoperative additional imaging can be needed for the detection of tonsil cancer.

18F-FDG PET/CT has been widely used and reported to be valuable in the detection of tonsil cancer, showing higher sensitivity in detecting primary tumors than CT and MR imaging [5]. However, it has the limitation of radiation exposure and false-negative readings. Diffusion weighted image (DWI) has been used to differentiate normal tonsils from tumors [2, 4]. Bathia et al. [4] reported that tonsil cancer shows higher mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) than normal tonsils. Histogram analysis of DWI also showed that the standard deviation of the overall curve is a useful parameter for the detection of occult palatine tonsil cancer [2]. However, the clinical value of histogram analysis of ADC maps remains challenging in daily clinical practice.

Recently, texture analysis has been introduced and applied in lung [6, 7], esophageal [8], colorectal [9], and head and neck cancers [10-12]. It quantifies the tumor heterogeneity using mathematical calculations of spatial patterns or arrangement of pixel intensities [13]. In head and neck cancers, it is usually used for treatment assessment [11, 12] and correlates with human papillomavirus (HPV) status [10, 14]. Until now, it has not been used for the discrimination of tonsil cancer from normal tonsils. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine whether there are differences in texture analysis parameters between tonsil cancers and normal tonsils. Additionally, this study aimed to correlate texture analysis with 18F-FDG PET/CT to investigate the relationship between texture analysis and metabolic parameters and to enhance the understanding of texture analysis results.

Materials and methods

The Hanyang University Hospital institutional review board and Hanyang University Guri Hospital institutional review board approved the study, and informed consent was waived in accordance with the requirements of a retrospective study. This study included 64 consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed unilateral tonsillar cancer (38 men, 26 women; age range, 48–88 years; mean age, 59.13 years). Diagnosis was made with tonsillectomy in 44 cases and with biopsy in 20 cases. Patients underwent pretreatment contrast-enhanced neck CT (CECT) between March 2005 and July 2019 in a tertiary care hospital (Hanyang University Hospital) and a secondary care hospital (Hanyang University Guri Hospital). Tumor, node, and metastasis were staged according to the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system. All patients underwent both a CECT and a 18F-FDG PET/CT. And a gap between CECT and a 18F-FDG PET/CT was less than 2 weeks.

CT imaging and texture analysis

CT imaging of 41 patients in Hanyang University Hospital was performed using a 100-s delay, 120 kVp, 200 mAs, 2-mm slice thickness reconstruction (Brilliance 64, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands; SOMATOM Definition Flash, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). CT imaging of 23 patients at Hanyang University Guri Hospital was performed using the same protocols with 64- or 128-channel scanner systems (SOMATOM Definition DS and SOMATOM Definition Edge, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany).

Two neuroradiologists with 7-year and 3-year experiences in the head and neck area performed texture analysis using commercially available software (TexRAD, Cambridge, UK). The freehand region of interest (ROI) was drawn along the outer border of the primary tumor and normal contralateral palatine tonsil on multiple consecutive axial slices to perform volumetric CT texture measurements. Slices with dental artifacts were excluded from the measurements. TexRAD software uses filtration-histogram methods [15], in which image filtering highlights image and object features of a particular size according to the type of filter used. In the spatial scaling factor (SSF, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), SSF 0 and 2 are defined as fine, SSF 3 and 4 as medium, and SSF 5 and 6 as coarse. Fine filters show enhancement of tissue parenchymal features, whereas medium and coarse filters show enhanced vascular features [16]. The texture analysis-derived parameters were obtained: mean, standard deviation (SD), entropy (texture irregularities and tumor heterogeneity), mean of positive pixels (MPP), kurtosis (peakedness of pixels), and skewness (asymmetry of pixel distribution).

18F-FDG PET/CT image acquisition

All images were obtained with a PET/CT system (GE Discovery, GE healthcare, Waukesha, USA and Siemens, Germany). Patients fasted for at least 6 h before 18F-FDG PET/CT. Blood glucose level was measured prior to FDG injection and was confirmed to be <180 mg/dL in all patients. Approximately 5.18 MBq/kg 18F-FDG was intravenously injected 50 min before imaging. First, low-dose CT (120 kVp, tube current modulation) was performed, and a PET scan was obtained from the skull base to the proximal thighs, with an acquisition time of 2.5 min per bed position in three-dimensional mode. PET images were reconstructed with ordered-subset expectation maximization with attenuation correction using vendor-provided software (VUE Point High Definition, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA).

18F-FDG PET/CT image analysis

All PET/CT images were transferred to in-house software (MIM software). The VOI was drawn in the tumor and normal tonsils. Automatically, the metabolic parameters were obtained: standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) on the tumor side and normal side. The SUVmaxT/N was additionally obtained after normalization by dividing by the normal side values.

Statistical analysis

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess the normality of data. Differences in general categorical patient characteristics were analyzed using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. The Mann–Whitney U test was performed to assess the difference between normal and palatine tonsils. The differences among the three groups were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis or the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test with the Mann–Whitney U test. The inter-reader agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed for discrimination of tumors from normal tonsils. Spearman’s correlation was obtained to evaluate the linear correlation between texture analysis and metabolic parameters from 18F-FDG PET/CT. The block diagram of the work is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

The block diagram of the work.

All statistical calculations were performed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc version 18 (MedCalc, Ostend, Belgium); p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

General tumor characteristics

There were 14 cancers in the T1 stage, 34 in the T2 stage, 5 in the T3 stage, and 11 in the T4 stage. Forty-eight cancers were early, and 16 were advanced. There were 34 HPV (+) and 18 HPV (-) patients, and 12 with undetermined HPV status. Patient demographic information and staging of the tumors are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline patient and tumor characteristics.

	Total (n = 64)	Early stage (n = 48)	Advanced stage (n = 16)
Age	62.32 ± 10.93	61.09 ± 11.45	65.94 ± 8.44
Sex
male	54	39	15
female	10	9	1
HPV
positive	34	25	9
negative	18	16	2
untested	12	7	5
T stage
T1	14	14	NA
T2	34	34	NA
T3	5	NA	5
T4	11	NA	11
N stage
N0	13	11	2
N1	16	15	1
N2	29	21	8
N3	6	1	5

HPV: Human papilloma virus, NA: not applicable.

CT texture analysis

The tumor side exhibited a significantly lower mean value with SSF 2–6 than the normal side (p<0.001). The tumor side showed significantly higher SD and higher entropy than the normal side at all filter values (p<0.001). The tumor side exhibited significantly lower skewness with SSF 0–4 than the normal side (p<0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.003, respectively). The tumor side showed significantly higher kurtosis than the normal side at all filter values (p = 0.001, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.012, respectively).

Fig 2 shows the texture analysis-derived features of tonsil cancer, in both early and advanced tumors, compared with contralateral normal tonsils. For the 3 group comparisons, SD, entropy, and kurtosis showed significant differences at all filters (all p<0.001 for SD and entropy; p = 0.005, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, = 0.001, and = 0.043, respectively, for kurtosis). The mean with SSF 2–6 (p<0.001), and the skewness with SSF 0–4 and 6 (p<0.001, <0.001, <0.001, = 0.012, and = 0.044, respectively), exhibited significant differences. For the comparison between early stage tumors and normal tonsils, early stage tumors showed significantly higher SD, entropy, and kurtosis than normal tonsils at all filter values (all p<0.001 for SD and entropy; p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.021 for kurtosis, respectively). Early stage tumors showed significantly lower mean than normal tonsils for SSF 2–6 (p<0.001, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.001, respectively). Early stage tumors showed significantly lower skewness than normal tonsils with SSF 0–4 (p<0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.021, respectively). In the comparison between the early and advanced tumor groups, only the mean for SSF 3–5 was significantly different (p = 0.032, = 0.022, and = 0.014, respectively). In comparison between the advanced tumor group and the normal tonsil, the mean with SSF 2–6 showed significant differences (p<0.001). SD and entropy exhibited significant differences at all filters (p <0.001, 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, respectively for SD, and all p<0.001 for entropy). Skewness of SSF 0–3 and 6 showed significant differences (p = 0.006, = 0.002, <0.001, and = 0.043, respectively). Kurtosis of SSF 2–5 showed significant differences (p<0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and = 0.010). All texture analysis parameter values and p values are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Inter-reader measurement reliability for texture analysis parameters was almost perfect (ICC, 0.81–0.99).

Fig 2

Imaging appearance and texture analysis features of early stage (a) and advanced stage (b) tonsil cancer.

ROI for tonsil cancer and contralateral normal tonsils are demonstrated. Representative texture images with SSF 0, 3, 5 and coarse filters are shown. The red color in texture images indicates positive pixel values, and the blue color indicates negative pixel values, which are made after filtration according to filters of different sizes. The tumor side is more heterogeneous than the normal side and tends to have more negative pixel values. This feature is more noticeable with the SSF 0, fine filter.

Table 2

Comparisons of texture analysis-derived parameters between normal tonsil and tonsil cancer.

	Mean			SD			Entropy
SSF	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value
0	84.3	83.43	0.672	25.38	17.83	<0.001*	4.59	4.17	<0.001*
2	8.62	19.97	<0.001*	61.39	50.28	<0.001*	5.5	5.17	<0.001*
3	14.35	31.26	<0.001*	60.46	49.61	<0.001*	5.48	5.17	<0.001*
4	18.15	35.95	<0.001*	58.86	46.59	<0.001*	5.45	5.1	<0.001*
5	21.45	36.22	<0.001*	58.42	42.94	<0.001*	5.44	5.02	<0.001*
6	23.05	39.02	<0.001*	57.29	40.92	<0.001*	5.44	4.99	<0.001*
	MPP			Skewness			Kurtosis
SSF	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value	Tumor (n = 64)	Normal (n = 64)	p value
0	85.79	83.72	0.306	-0.88	-0.31	<0.001*	2.62	1.08	0.001*
2	48.57	47.53	*0.365	-0.29	0.2	<0.001*	1.27	0.38	<0.001*
3	51.06	53.22	*0.750	-0.33	0.3	<0.001*	0.98	-0.2	<0.001*
4	53	55.29	*0.804	-0.31	-0.14	0.003*	0.79	0.1	<0.001*
5	53.32	56.07	*0.990	-0.31	-0.29	0.801	0.4	-0.11	<0.001*
6	53.46	57.92	*0.712	-0.31	-0.41	0.141	0.16	-0.14	0.012*

* Statistically significant.

SD standard deviation, MPP mean positive pixel, SSF spatial scaling factor.

Table 3

Comparisons of texture analysis-derived parameters among normal tonsil, early tonsil cancer, and advanced tonsil cancer.

	SSF	Mean	SD	Entropy	MPP	Skewness	Kurtosis
p value	0	0.635	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.444	<0.001*	0.005*
	2	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.569	<0.001*	<0.001*
	3	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.763	<0.001*	<0.001*
	4	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.771	0.012*	<0.001*
	5	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.809	0.861	0.001*
	6	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.833	0.044*	0.043*
Early vs normal	0	0.997	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.786	<0.001*	0.002*
	2	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.312	<0.001*	<0.001*
	3	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.930	<0.001*	<0.001*
	4	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.953	0.021*	<0.001*
	5	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.899	0.909	<0.001*
	6	0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.661	0.749	0.021*
Early vs advanced	0	0.669	0.556	0.927	0.727	0.871	0.745
	2	0.072	0.988	1.000	0.515	0.420	0.471
	3	0.032*	0.871	0.935	0.438	0.281	0.871
	4	0.022*	0.614	0.442	0.369	0.973	0.858
	5	0.014*	0.525	0.372	0.321	0.974	0.914
	6	0.20	0.520	0.567	0.485	0.214	0.975
Advanced vs normal	0	0.622	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.432	0.006*	0.43
	2	<0.001*	0.002*	<0.001*	0.829	0.002*	<0.001*
	3	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.532	<0.001*	<0.001*
	4	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.613	0.099	<0.001*
	5	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.819	0.878	0.010*
	6	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.971	0.043*	0.111

* Statistically significant.

SD standard deviation, MPP mean positive pixel, SSF spatial scaling factor.

The AUC for entropy with SSF 0 and 4 was the highest with 0.91, differentiating tonsil cancer from normal tonsils (Fig 3). For the entropy with SSF 0, the sensitivity was 79.7% and the specificity was 92.2% at the cutoff value of 4.45. For the entropy with SSF 4, the sensitivity was 90.6% and the specificity was 88.2% at the cutoff value of 5.3. For differentiation of early tonsil cancer from normal tonsils, entropy was the most accurate with an AUC of 0.90, with SSF 0, 3, and 4. For differentiation of advanced tonsil cancer from normal tonsils, entropy was the most accurate with an AUC of 0.94 with SSF 0, 4, and 5.

Fig 3

The ROC curve analysis was performed to differentiate tonsil cancer from normal tonsils.

The AUC for entropy with SSF 0 and 4 was the highest at 0.91.

The correlations between texture analysis and 18F-FDG PET/CT are shown in S1 Table. There was mild significant correlation between mean and SUVmax (r = 0.28, p = 0.04) and between MPP and SUVmax (r = 0.27, p = 0.048) at SSF 0. There were also significant correlations between mean and SUVmean (r = 0.3, p = 0.03) and between MPP and SUVmean (r = 0.29, p = 0.03) at SSF 0. Mean showed a negative correlation with TLG at SSF 2, 3, 4, and 5 (r = -0.34, -0.35, -0.34, and -0.31, respectively; p = 0.01). After normalization with the contralateral normal tonsil, entropy showed a linear correlation with SUVmaxT/N at SSF 2 (r = 0.27, p = 0.04). In addition, entropy showed a mild correlation with SUVmeanT/N at SSF 0, 2, 3, and 4 (r = 0.30, 0.36, 0.33, and 0.30; p = 0.03, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, respectively).

Discussion

In this study, we found that texture analysis can be useful for differentiating tumors from normal tonsils. Among the texture analysis-derived parameters, entropy was the most helpful in distinguishing early tonsil cancer from normal tonsils. In cases of early tonsil cancer, which could be difficult to detect with visual analysis on contrast-enhanced CT, the entropy derived from the texture analysis could be useful for the diagnosis of tonsil cancer. There was a mild correlation between texture analysis parameters and FDG uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT, which suggests that the texture analysis parameters relate to the physiologic state of the tumor.

Tumor heterogeneity is a well-recognized histopathologic feature of malignancy, reflecting high cell density, necrosis, hemorrhage, and myxoid change [6, 17]. High tumoral heterogeneity is associated with adverse biology, aggressive clinical course, and increased resistance to treatment [18]. A recent study on oropharyngeal cancer showed a correlation between texture and HPV status, showing a lower value of entropy and SD in the HPV-positive group [10]. For the correlation between texture and treatment response, texture analysis parameters are known to be associated with local failure in patients with head and neck cancer with chemoradiotherapy. CT texture features correlated with TNM stages in gastric cancer and esophageal cancer, indicating that tumors with higher T or N stages have higher levels of heterogeneity-related features [19, 20]. Furthermore, several texture features can discriminate between high- and low-grade lung cancers [21, 22]. Meyer et al. reported that CT entropy was correlated with hypoxic related pathological parameter, hypoxia-inducible factor-1-alpha expression [23]. This study was concordant with previous studies that showed high entropy in malignant tumors [10].

Texture analysis is a computer-based, image processing technique that allows for the mathematical detection of changes in pixel density, which may be visually imperceptible [6]. It can assess the tumoral heterogeneity by analyzing the distribution and relationship of the pixel gray level in the images. It can maximize the information obtained from routinely acquired diagnostic images in current clinical practice without additional acquisition of images or an invasive procedure. However, the filtration histogram-technique is required owing to the CT photon-noise, which can influence the radiologist’s impression of image quality and mask the biologic heterogeneity. By using filters, CT texture analysis reduces the effect of photon noise and enhances the biological heterogeneity [7]. Fine filters usually enhance tissue parenchymal features, and medium to coarse filters enhance vascular features [24].

Tonsil cancer usually demonstrates asymmetric enlargement on contrast-enhanced CT. In cases of early tonsil cancer, the cancer density usually appears similar to that of normal tonsils. Therefore, the visual analysis sometimes fails to depict the mass in the tonsil because there is no difference in enhancement between tonsil cancer and normal palatine tonsils. In these cases, the patients are classified as having a malignancy of unknown origin presenting with cervical nodal metastasis. These patients undergo biopsies of the tonsil, and tongue base to determine the origin of the primary tumor [25]. Accordingly, the hypothesis was that computer-based assessment of texture analysis could be useful in detecting tonsil cancer, especially in the early stage. The study results showed that entropy was the most significant parameter for detecting tonsil cancer, compared with normal palatine tonsils. Entropy refers to the randomness of pixel intensity. Therefore, in cases of early tonsil cancer, which could be difficult to detect with visual analysis on contrast-enhanced CT, the entropy derived from the texture analysis could be useful for the diagnosis of tonsil cancer.

It can also be difficult to differentiate tonsil cancer from normal lymphoid tissue using magnetic resonance imaging. DWI is an MR technique that has the potential to improve the detection of head and neck cancer [26]. It is well known that malignant tumors have lower ADC values than benign lesions. Multiple studies have provided ADC threshold values, but they have showed a broad spectrum [27-29]. A recent meta-analysis reported that DWI/ADC alone cannot be used as an imaging biomarker of malignancy in head and neck cancer [30].

The correlation analysis to evaluate the relationship between texture analysis parameter and metabolic parameter on 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed. Generally, FDG uptake by tumors on 18F-FDG PET/CT shows a correlation with malignancy and reflects the physiologic condition of the tumor [31]. Texture analysis parameters are already known to be related to tumor biology. Texture analysis showed a mild linear correlation with the tumor uptake on 18F-FDG PEC/CT in this study. This result was concordant with the study by Ganeshan et al [32], which showed a strong correlation between SUVmax or SUVmean and entropy in esophageal cancer.

This study has several limitations. First, the texture analysis was performed in only patients with tonsil cancers. To verify the texture analysis based on tumor detection, further studies with patients with head and neck cancer could be needed with prospective and multicenter studies. Second, a correlation between texture parameters and histopathologic markers, such as angiogenesis or hypoxia, was not performed. To better understand the tumor biology, a future correlation study with histopathologic markers is needed. Finally, despite the scan protocols were same, there might be a potential influence of different CT scanner on the texture analysis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, entropy was the most useful parameter to distinguish tonsil cancer from normal tonsils. Texture analysis showed a mild linear correlation with tumor uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Therefore, as a measurement method of tumor heterogeneity, texture analysis relates to the physiologic condition of the tumor. In cases of early tonsil cancer, which could be difficult to detect with visual analysis on contrast-enhanced CT, the entropy derived from the texture analysis could be useful for the diagnosis of tonsil cancer.

Results of correlation between texture analysis and 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-07708

CT texture analysis of tonsil cancer: discrimination from normal palatine tonsils

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas Pyka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

4. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "Our institutional review board approved the study, and informed consent was waived in accordance with the requirements of a retrospective study. ".

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research."

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: comments:

· The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable

· In terms of experimental technique, this paper is novel

· I would like to see some discussion of the findings of the papers with existing values (entropy) in other papers

Minor comments:

· In several places, you've used the term “we”, but it seems unnecessary.

· The author can add Block Diagram of the Work.

If the above changes made in manuscript, I recommend to publish the same.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Jul 2021

Point by point responses.

Thank the editor and reviewers for their very thoughtful suggestions and comments that were very helpful for revising the manuscript. Followings are descriptions on the point-by-point corrections made in the revised manuscript and answers to the questions raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

**

Reviewer #1: comments:

· The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable.

· In terms of experimental technique, this paper is novel

Response: Thanks for the kind review and words.

· I would like to see some discussion of the findings of the papers with existing values (entropy) in other papers

Response: in response to the comment, one more reference was added as follows: Meyer et al. reported that CT entropy was correlated with hypoxic related pathological parameter, hypoxia-inducible factor-1-alpha expression.

Minor comments:

· In several places, you've used the term “we”, but it seems unnecessary.

Response: in response to the comment, we corrected most of sentences.

· The author can add Block Diagram of the Work.

Response: We added as table 1 as follows.

If the above changes made in manuscript, I recommend to publish the same

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Jul 2021

CT texture analysis of tonsil cancer: discrimination from normal palatine tonsils

PONE-D-21-07708R1

Dear Dr. Lee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thomas Pyka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-07708R1

CT texture analysis of tonsil cancer: discrimination from normal palatine tonsils

Dear Dr. Lee:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thomas Pyka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE