| Literature DB >> 35647484 |
Margaux Doillon1, Carole Durot1, Claire Pluchart2, Claude Marcus3, Manel Djelouah1, Aline Carsin-Vu1.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine whether texture analysis features on pretreatment contrast-enhanced CT images could predict adequate response (AR) or inadequate response (IR) after two cycles of chemotherapy in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma (PHL). Materials and methods: This retrospective single-center study included 32 children and adolescents with HL. Texture analysis was independently performed by two radiologists using pretreatment CT scans. The mean gray level, standard deviation, entropy, kurtosis, and skewness were derived from pixel distribution histograms before and after spatial filtration ranging from two (fine texture) to six (coarse texture). Interobserver reliability was studied using interobserver correlation coefficients (ICCs) to select texture parameters. Relationships between early response assessment (ERA) to induction therapy and associated factors were studied using Student's t-tests and a lasso penalized logistic regression analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Computer-assisted image analysis; Hodgkin lymphoma; Pediatric; Therapeutics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35647484 PMCID: PMC9104423 DOI: 10.5334/jbsr.2752
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Belg Soc Radiol ISSN: 2514-8281 Impact factor: 1.912
Figure 1CT images in 17-year-old young men with Hodgkin’s lymphoma stage IIB. Illustration of nodal lesion delimitation, image filtration.
Patient characteristics.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| PARAMETER | ALL PATIENTS (%) | PATIENTS WITH AR (%) | PATIENTS WITH IR (%) |
|
| |||
| TOTAL | 32 | 19 | 13 |
|
| |||
| Sex | |||
|
| |||
| Male | 15 (46.9%) | 9 (47.4%) | 6 (46.2%) |
|
| |||
| Female | 17 (53.1%) | 10 (52.6%) | 7 (53.8%) |
|
| |||
| Stage | |||
|
| |||
| I | 2 (6.25%) | 2 (10.5%) | 0 |
|
| |||
| II | 10 (31.25%) | 6 (31.6%) | 4 (30.8%) |
|
| |||
| III | 10 (31.25%) | 6 (31.6%) | 4 (30.8%) |
|
| |||
| IV | 10 (31.25%) | 5 (26.3%) | 5 (38.4%) |
|
| |||
| TG | |||
|
| |||
| 1 | 4 (12.5%) | 4 (21.1%) | 0 |
|
| |||
| 2 | 13 (40.6%) | 7 (36.8%) | 6 (46.2%) |
|
| |||
| 3 | 15 (46.9%) | 8 (42.1%) | 7 (53.8%) |
|
| |||
| Lesions | |||
|
| |||
| Lymph node | 62 (79.5%) | 35 (77.8%) | 27 (81.8%) |
|
| |||
| Thymus | 12 (15.4%) | 8 (17.8%) | 4 (12.1%) |
|
| |||
| Lung | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (4.4%) | 2 (6.1%) |
|
| |||
Inter-reader agreement.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARAMETER ICC (INTERVAL) | SSF0 | SSF2 | SSF3 | SSF4 | SSF5 | SSF6 |
|
| ||||||
| Mean | 0.995 | 0.791 | 0.773 | 0.837 | 0.837 | 0.849 |
|
| ||||||
| Standard deviation | 0.884 | 0.965 | 0.974 | 0.946 | 0.923 | 0.924 |
|
| ||||||
| Entropy | 0.96 | 0.942 | 0.896 | 0.898 | 0.889 | 0.827 |
|
| ||||||
| Mean of positive pixels | 0.997 | 0.97 | 0.953 | 0.981 | 0.824 | 0.804 |
|
| ||||||
| Skewness | 0.832 | 0.901 | 0.84 | 0.894 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Kurtosis | 0.893 | 0.863 | 0.894 | 0.89 | ||
|
| ||||||
The bottom ICCs (< 0,75) are in bold.
ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient.
Univariate analysis results.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARAMETER P-VALUE | SSF0 | SSF2 | SSF3 | SSF4 | SSF5 | SSF6 |
|
| ||||||
| Mean | 0.093 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.33 |
|
| ||||||
| Sd | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.79 | 0.93 |
|
| ||||||
| Entropy | 0.10 |
| 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.97 | 0.79 |
|
| ||||||
| Mpp | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.46 | 0.66 | 0.99 | 0.89 |
|
| ||||||
| Skewness | 0.19 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.78 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Kurtosis | 0.77 | 0.90 | 0.67 | 0.39 | ||
|
| ||||||
* P < 0.05, indicating a significant difference.