| Literature DB >> 34913991 |
Florian Michallek1, Henkjan Huisman2, Bernd Hamm3, Sefer Elezkurtaj4, Andreas Maxeiner5, Marc Dewey3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI has high diagnostic accuracy for detecting prostate cancer, but non-invasive prediction of tumor grade remains challenging. Characterizing tumor perfusion by exploiting the fractal nature of vascular anatomy might elucidate the aggressive potential of a tumor. This study introduces the concept of fractal analysis for characterizing prostate cancer perfusion and reports about its usefulness for non-invasive prediction of tumor grade.Entities:
Keywords: Fractals; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm grading; Perfusion; Prostatic neoplasms
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34913991 PMCID: PMC9038862 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08394-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 7.034
Fig. 1Hypothesis and rationale for fractal analysis of perfusion territories. a Perfusion territories exist for each vascular scale and include a proximal, regulating feeding vessel (red), depending distal vessels (blue), and the corresponding perfused tissue (gray area). A fractal relationship exists between flow and size of the territory; see Supplementary Fig. S1 for an animated version. b Vascular dedifferentiation during tumor angiogenesis alters the perfusion pattern, which is depicted in gray levels underneath the trees. c–f Illustration of fractal analysis. c Perfusion MRI with the tumor area being marked and magnified (blue frame). Pixels marked in red indicate the tumor margin and adjacent tissue and constitute the pathophysiologically relevant region of interest. d To calculate fractal dimension, the image is considered a texture embedded in two-dimensional space with intensity as third dimension. e Fractal dimension map of the tumor area and (f) of the whole prostate with the corresponding T2-weighted image underneath. This example shows a prostate cancer focus (arrow in f) in the right midglandular peripheral zone. The tumor margin has a mean local fractal dimension of 2.344, which corresponds to ISUP grade group 3 and was confirmed histologically
Fig. 2Results of in silico experiments. a Host vessel tree (red) with a placeholder for later insertion of a tumor tree (marked with a purple T). b Tumor trees (purple) with varying optimization targets to represent different stages of vascular dedifferentiation: intravascular volume (low), endothelial surface (intermediate), and vessel length (high). c Perfusion territories resulting from host and tumor tree anatomy. The gray value is additively proportional to the quotient of ln Qfrac / ln afrac multiplied with the respective perfusion rate at each vascular scale according to the definition of the vascular model (here rescaled for visual purposes). d From top to bottom: complete vascular phantom for each dedifferentiation stage after inserting tumor trees (purple) into the placeholders of the host trees (red). Perfusion phantoms were calculated (original scale). The tumor margin is marked in red. Maps of the local fractal dimension (FD) were generated. e Boxplot of FD against tumor vascular dedifferentiation stage. Significances of groupwise differences are indicated by asterisks: *—p < 0.03; n—sample size per dedifferentiation stage
Fig. 3Application of fractal analysis to clinical MR imaging data of prostate cancer. a One representative example of fractal analysis of prostate cancer perfusion for each ISUP grade group is shown. All cancers are similar in morphologic appearance and location, i.e., left peripheral zone (arrows). The first row shows color-coded maps of the local fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion in the whole tumor fused with T2-weighted MR images (T2w + FD) for anatomic correlation. Note that the margin of the tumor, which is considered to be pathophysiologically relevant, is clearly depicted and can be differentiated by its FD from the tumor core. The second row shows the corresponding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR images, which constitute the input for fractal analysis. b Boxplot of fractal dimension (FD) categorized by ISUP grade group. Significances of groupwise differences are indicated by asterisks. c Receiver-operating characteristic curves of fractal dimension (FD) for the differentiation of prostate cancers in dichotomized pooled ISUP grade groups. Sensitivity was defined as the fraction of correctly identified lesions in the higher-grade group pool. *—p = .001; **—p < .001; n.s.—not significant; n—sample size per group; ISUP grade group 1—Gleason score ≤ 6; group 2—Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7; group 3—Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7; group 4—Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8; 3 + 5 = 8; 5 + 3 = 8; group 5—Gleason scores 9–10
Results of the discovery study. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for two-class prediction by dichotomizing the dataset as well as multiclass prediction of pooled ISUP grade groups; 95% confidence intervals (CI) are given in brackets
| Pooled ISUP grade group comparison | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fractal dimension | |||
| 1 versus 2–5 | 0.97 (CI: 0.93–1.0) | 91% (CI: 83–96%) 69/76 | 86% (CI: 73–94%) 31/36 |
| 1–2 versus 3–5 | 1.0 (CI: 0.97–1.0) | 100% (CI: 92–100%) 35/35 | 100% (CI: 96–100%) 77/77 |
| 1–3 versus 4–5 | 0.99 (CI: 0.97–1.0) | 87% (CI: 64–98%) 13/15 | 100% (CI: 97–100%) 97/97 |
| 1–4 versus 5 | 0.97 (CI: 0.92–1.0) | 43% (CI: 13–77%) 3/7 | 99% (CI: 96–100%) 104/105 |
| Multiclass prediction | 0.95 (CI: 0.91–0.99) | – | – |
| Apparent diffusion coefficient | |||
| 1 versus 2–5 | 0.77 (CI: 0.67–0.88) | 91% (CI: 83–96%) 69/76 | 61% (CI: 43–77%) 22/36 |
Cutoff values of fractal dimension (FD) for differentiation of pooled ISUP grade groups, determined as efficiency cutoffs as described under “Materials and methods”
| Pooled ISUP grade group comparison | FD cutoff |
|---|---|
| 1 versus 2–5 | 2.20 ( |
| 1–2 versus 3–5 | 2.31 ( |
| 1–3 versus 4–5 | 2.40 ( |