| Literature DB >> 35360261 |
Bin Shi1, Jiang-Ning Dong1, Li-Xiang Zhang2, Cui-Ping Li3, Fei Gao1, Nai-Yu Li1, Chuan-Bin Wang1, Xin Fang1, Pei-Pei Wang1.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the value of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) and texture analysis on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) for evaluating pathological differentiation of cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Method: This retrospective study included a total of 138 patients with pathologically confirmed poor/moderate/well-differentiated (71/49/18) who underwent conventional MRI and IVIM-DWI scans. The values of ADC, D, D ∗ , and f and 58 T2WI-based texture features (18 histogram features, 24 gray-level co-occurrence matrix features, and 16 gray-level run length matrix features) were obtained. Multiple comparison, correlation, and regression analyses were used.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360261 PMCID: PMC8947887 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2837905
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
The basic information of patients and lesions in this study.
| Group/ |
| Age | Length of lesions | Number of surgery/biopsy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poorly differentiated | 71 | 51.37 ± 9.95 (range: 27∼78) | 26.92 ± 8.48 | 36/35 |
| Moderately differentiated | 49 | 51.98 ± 9.84 (range: 31∼73) | 28.36 ± 9.73 | 28/21 |
| Well-differentiated | 18 | 54.56 ± 11.83 (range: 38∼88) | 27.67 ± 7.39 | 7/11 |
|
| — | 0.495c | 0.677c | 0.409d |
aNumber of cases in each group. bStatistically significant difference (p < 0.05). cAnalysis of variance. dPearson chi-square test. The parameters of age and length of lesions with normal distributions are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 1The steps of image acquisition and statistical analysis.
Figure 2Examples of manually drawing ROIs for cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Panels A–H belong to a 50-year-old female with cervical squamous cell carcinoma of well-differentiated. On panel A (IVIM-DWI at 1200 s/mm2), each radiologist drew ROI-1 (5 mm2) three times to get the values on the maps of ADC, D, D, and f, respectively (panels B–E). Panel F is the maximum area of the lesion on T2WI, so the radiologist drew ROI-2 of the whole lesion on panel G. Panel H is the pathological performance, HE ∗ 400.
The parameters of texture analysis used in this study.
| Methods | Features | Number of features |
|---|---|---|
| Histogram | Energy, total energy, entropy, minimum, 10th percentile, 90th percentile, maximum, mean, median, interquartile range, range, mean absolute deviation (MAD), robust mean absolute deviation (rMAD), root mean squared (RMS), skewness, kurtosis, variance, uniformity | 18 |
| Gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) | Autocorrelation, joint average, cluster prominence, cluster shade, cluster tendency, contrast, correlation, difference average, difference entropy, difference variance, joint energy, joint entropy, informational measure of correlation (IMC) 1, informational measure of correlation (IMC) 2, inverse difference moment (IDM), maximal correlation coefficient (MCC), inverse difference moment normalized (IDMN), inverse difference (ID), inverse difference normalized (IDN), inverse variance, maximum probability, sum average, sum entropy, sum of squares | 24 |
| Gray-level run length matrix (GLRLM) | Short run emphasis (SRE), long run emphasis (LRE), gray-level nonuniformity (GLN), gray-level nonuniformity normalized (GLNN), run length non-uniformity (RLN), run length non-uniformity normalized (RLNN), run percentage (RP), gray-level variance (GLV), run variance (RV), run entropy (RE), low gray-level run emphasis (LGLRE), high gray-level run emphasis (HGLRE), short run low gray-level emphasis (SRLGLE), short run high gray-level emphasis (SRHGLE), long run low gray-level emphasis (LRLGLE), long run high gray-level emphasis (LRHGLE) | 16 |
The comparison of IVIM-DWI parameters.
| Group/ |
| ADC |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poorly differentiated | 71 | 0.74 ± 0.10 | 0.54 (0.16) | 9.13 (11.10) | 29.50 (24.80) |
| Moderately differentiated | 49 | 0.79 ± 0.14 | 0.63 ± 0.10 | 17.30 (9.93) | 22.60 (5.92) |
| Well-differentiated | 18 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 0.73 ± 0.13 | 31.32 ± 16.95 | 18.80 (6.43) |
|
| — | 0.006 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.034 |
aNumber of cases in each group. bStatistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The units of the ADC, D, and D values are 10−3 mm2/s, and the unit of the f value is %. The parameters with normal distributions are presented as the mean ± standard deviation, and the parameters with skewed distributions are presented as the median (interquartile range). The analysis of variance was used for the ADC value, and the nonparametric test was used for D, D, and f values.
Figure 3Correlation results of IVIM-DWI based on degree of differentiation. Panels A∼D are the tendencies of the correlation between ADC, D, D, f values and pathological differentiation visualized by scatter diagrams. The labels “0,” “1,” and “2” represent the poorly, moderately, and well-differentiated groups, respectively.
Figure 4Statistical results of multiple comparison analysis of texture features on T2WI. Panels A∼C are the column diagrams of significant texture features (p < 0.05). The red, yellow, and green column represent the poorly, moderately, and well-differentiated groups, respectively. The abbreviations are listed in Table 2.
Statistical results of regression analysis.
| Regression model | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poorly vs. moderately |
| 0.797 (0.718–0.875) | 97.96 | 50.70 |
| Moderately vs. well |
| 0.954 (0.882–1.000) | 93.88 | 94.44 |
| Poorly vs. moderately and well |
| 0.795 (0.720–0.870) | 88.06 | 64.79 |
| Well vs. moderately and poorly |
| 0.952 (0.888–0.952) | 91.69 | 94.44 |
IDMN represented for inverse difference moment normalized. SRHGLE represented for short run high gray-level emphasis. The units of the sensitivity and specificity are %.
Figure 5Statistical results of ROC curves.