Assessment of tissue heterogeneity using diffusion tensor and diffusion kurtosis imaging for grading gliomas
- 521 Downloads
In this work, we aim to assess the significance of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters in grading gliomas.
Retrospective studies were performed on 53 subjects with gliomas belonging to WHO grade II (n = 19), grade III (n = 20) and grade IV (n = 14). Expert marked regions of interest (ROIs) covering the tumour on T2-weighted images. Statistical texture measures such as entropy and busyness calculated over ROIs on diffusion parametric maps were used to assess the tumour heterogeneity. Additionally, we propose a volume heterogeneity index derived from cross correlation (CC) analysis as a tool for grading gliomas. The texture measures were compared between grades by performing the Mann-Whitney test followed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for evaluating diagnostic accuracy.
Entropy, busyness and volume heterogeneity index for all diffusion parameters except fractional anisotropy and anisotropy of kurtosis showed significant differences between grades. The Mann-Whitney test on mean diffusivity (MD), among DTI parameters, resulted in the highest discriminability with values of P = 0.029 (0.0421) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.0312 (0.0415) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). In DKI, mean kurtosis (MK) showed the highest discriminability, P = 0.018 (0.038) for grade II vs. III and P = 0.022 (0.04) for III vs. IV for entropy (busyness). Results of CC analysis illustrate the existence of homogeneity in volume (uniformity across slices) for lower grades, as compared to higher grades. Hypothesis testing performed on volume heterogeneity index showed P values of 0.0002 (0.0001) and 0.0003 (0.0003) between grades II vs. III and III vs. IV, respectively, for MD (MK).
In summary, the studies demonstrated great potential towards automating grading gliomas by employing tumour heterogeneity measures on DTI and DKI parameters.
KeywordsDiffusion tensor imaging Diffusion kurtosis imaging Glioma grading Textural features
Compliance with ethical standards
We declare that due to the retrospective nature of this study, informed consent was waived.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Van Cauter S, De Keyzer F, Sima DM, Sava AC, D’Arco F, Veraart J, Peeters RR, Leemans A, Van Gool S, Wilms G, Demaerel P (2014) Integrating diffusion kurtosis imaging, dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI, and short echo time chemical shift imaging for grading gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 16(7):1010–1021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Murakami R, Hirai T, Kitajima M, Fukuoka H, Toya R, Nakamura H, Kuratsu J, Yamashita Y (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas. Acta Radiol 49(4):462–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hilario A, Ramos A, Perez-Nuez A, Salvador E, Millan JM, Lagares A, Sepulveda JM, Gonzalez-Leon P, Hernandez-Lain A, Ricoy JR (2012) The added value of apparent diffusion coefficient to cerebral blood volume in the preoperative grading of diffuse gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:701–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Penny WD, Friston KJ, Ashburner JT, Kiebel SJ, Nichols TE (2011) Statistical parametric mapping: the analysis of functional brain images. Academic pressGoogle Scholar
- 30.Gonzalez, R.C. and Woods, R.E., (2008). Digital image processing. Nueva Jersey.Google Scholar
- 31.George Stockman and Linda G. Shapiro. (2001). Computer vision (1st ed.). Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
- 32.Baldi, I. and Loiseau, H., (2012). Epidemiology of primary brain tumors. In: Tumors of the central nervous system, volume 4 (pp. 3–13). Springer, Netherlands.Google Scholar