Diagnostic accuracy of MRI texture analysis for grading gliomas
Texture analysis (TA) can quantify variations in surface intensity or patterns, including some that are imperceptible to the human visual system. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of radiomic based filtration-histogram TA to differentiate high-grade from low-grade gliomas by assessing tumor heterogeneity.
Patients with a histopathological diagnosis of glioma and preoperative 3T MRI imaging were included in this retrospective study. A region of interest was manually delineated on post-contrast T1 images. TA was performed using commercially available research software. The histogram parameters including mean, standard deviation, entropy, mean of the positive pixels, skewness, and kurtosis were analyzed at spatial scaling factors ranging from 0 to 6 mm. The parameters were correlated with WHO glioma grade using Spearman correlation. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated using ROC curve analysis to distinguish tumor grades.
Of a total of 94 patients, 14 had low-grade gliomas and 80 had high-grade gliomas. Mean, SD, MPP, entropy and kurtosis each showed significant differences between glioma grades for different spatial scaling filters. Low and high-grade gliomas were best-discriminated using mean of 2 mm fine texture scale, with a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 86% (AUC of 0.90).
Quantitative measurement of heterogeneity using TA can discriminate high versus low-grade gliomas. Radiomic data of texture features can provide complementary diagnostic information for gliomas.
KeywordsGlioma Radiomics Texture analysis MRI
Funding for this study was provided by Pilot grant, Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati. Dr. Vagal has received research funding unrelated to this study from R01 NH/NINDS NS100417, R01 NIH/NINDS NS30678.
- 1.Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Math M, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, Martinez P, Matthews N, Stewart A, Tarpey P, Varela I, Phillimore B, Begum S, McDonald NQ, Butler A, Jones D, Raine K, Latimer C, Santos CR, Nohadani M, Eklund AC, Spencer-Dene B, Clark G, Pickering L, Stamp G, Gore M, Szallasi Z, Downward J, Futreal PA, Swanton C (2012) Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. New Eng J Med 366(10):883–892. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hu LS, Ning S, Eschbacher JM, Gaw N, Dueck AC, Smith KA, Nakaji P, Plasencia J, Ranjbar S, Price SJ, Tran N, Loftus J, Jenkins R, O’Neill BP, Elmquist W, Baxter LC, Gao F, Frakes D, Karis JP, Zwart C, Swanson KR, Sarkaria J, Wu T, Mitchell JR, Li J (2015) Multi-parametric MRI and texture analysis to visualize spatial histologic heterogeneity and tumor extent in glioblastoma. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0141506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Parikh J, Selmi M, Charles-Edwards G, Glendenning J, Ganeshan B, Verma H, Mansi J, Harries M, Tutt A, Goh V (2014) Changes in primary breast cancer heterogeneity may augment midtreatment MR imaging assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 272(1):100–112. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14130569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Win T, Miles KA, Janes SM, Ganeshan B, Shastry M, Endozo R, Meagher M, Shortman RI, Wan S, Kayani I, Ell PJ, Groves AM (2013) Tumor heterogeneity and permeability as measured on the CT component of PET/CT predict survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 19(13):3591–3599. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-1307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Yip C, Landau D, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Thomas R, Michaelidou A, Goh V (2014) Primary esophageal cancer: heterogeneity as potential prognostic biomarker in patients treated with definitive chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 270(1):141–148. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Juntu J, Sijbers J, De Backer S, Rajan J, Van Dyck D (2010) Machine learning study of several classifiers trained with texture analysis features to differentiate benign from malignant soft-tissue tumors in T1-MRI images. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(3):680–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HC, Bossuyt PM (2016) STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 6(11):e012799. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM, Peerlings J, de Jong EEC, van Timmeren J, Sanduleanu S, Larue R, Even AJG, Jochems A, van Wijk Y, Woodruff H, van Soest J, Lustberg T, Roelofs E, van Elmpt W, Dekker A, Mottaghy FM, Wildberger JE, Walsh S (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(12):749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Lubner MG, Stabo N, Lubner SJ, del Rio AM, Song C, Halberg RB, Pickhardt PJ (2015) CT textural analysis of hepatic metastatic colorectal cancer: pre-treatment tumor heterogeneity correlates with pathology and clinical outcomes. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2331–2337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0438-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131(6):803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar