An inter-centre statistical scale standardisation for quantitatively evaluating prostate tissue on T2-weighted MRI
- 81 Downloads
Magnetic resonance images (MRI) require intensity standardisation if they are used for the purpose of quantitative analysis as inherent variations in image intensity levels between different image sets are manifest due to technical factors. One approach is to standardise the image intensity values using a statistically applied biological reference tissue. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of differing candidate biological reference tissues for standardising T2WI intensity distributions. Fifty-one prostate cancer patients across two centres with different scanners were evaluated using the percentage interpatient coefficient of variation (%interCV) for four different biological references; femoral bone marrow, ischioanal fossa, obturator-internus muscle and bladder urine. The tissue with the highest reproducibility (lowest %interCV) in both centres was used for intensity standardisation of prostate T2WI using three different statistical measures (mean, Z-score, median + Interquartile Range). The performance of different standardisation methods was evaluated from the assessment of image intensity histograms and the percentage normalised root mean square error (%NRSME) of the healthy peripheral zone tissue. Ischioanal fossa as a reference tissue demonstrated the highest reproducibility with %interCV of 18.9 for centre1 and 11.2 for centre2. Using ischioanal fossa for statistical intensity standardisation and the median + Interquartile Range method demonstrated the lowest %NRMSE across centres for healthy peripheral zone tissues. This study demonstrates ischioanal fossa as a preferred reference tissue for standardising intensity values from T2WI of the prostate. Subsequent image standardisation using the median + Interquartile Range intensity of the reference tissue demonstrated a robust and reliable standardisation method for quantitative image assessment.
KeywordsStandardisation MRI T2WI Quantitative imaging Prostate cancer CV NRMSE
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support provided by the Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA). N. Gholizadeh gratefully appreciates the UNIPRS scholarship awarded to her by the University of Newcastle, Australia.
The authors’ responsibilities were as follows- Greer, Ramadan, Simpson: designed the research, protocol and project development, data acquisition and edited manuscript; Lau: prostate segmentation; Gholizadeh, Fuangrod, Ramadan: data analysis and wrote manuscript; Simpson: conducted the research and had primary responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.
This study was funded by the Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors read and approved the final manuscript. None of the authors had a conflict of interest.
Ethics approval for the study protocol was obtained from the local area heath ethics committee. This study was conducted under Hunter New England Imaging (HNEI) approval at Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Robitaille N, Mouiha A, Crépeault B, Valdivia F, Duchesne S (2012) Tissue-based MRI intensity standardization: application to multicentric datasets. J Biomed Imaging 2012:4Google Scholar
- 8.Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, Wilson BC, Haider MA (2009) Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(2):327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lemaître G, Rastgoo M, Massich J, Vilanova JC, Walker PM, Freixenet J, Meyer-Baese A, Mériaudeau F (2016) Martí R Normalization of t2w-mri prostate images using rician a priori. In: SPIE medical imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 978529–978529–978527Google Scholar
- 18.Artan Y, Haider MA, Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Yang Y, Wernick MN, Trachtenberg J, Yetik IS (2010) Prostate cancer localization with multispectral MRI using cost-sensitive support vector machines and conditional random fields. IEEE Trans Image Process 19(9):2444–2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Niaf E, Rouvière O, Lartizien C (2011) Computer-aided diagnosis for prostate cancer detection in the peripheral zone via multisequence MRI. In: SPIE medical imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 79633P–79633P–79638Google Scholar
- 25.Tustison N, Gee J (2009) N4ITK: Nick’s N3 ITK implementation for MRI bias field correction. Insight J 9Google Scholar
- 26.Pieper S, Halle M, Kikinis R (2004) 3D Slicer. In: IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: nano to macro 2004. IEEE, pp 632–635Google Scholar
- 27.Westwood MA, Firmin DN, Gildo M, Renzo G, Stathis G, Markissia K, Vasili B, Pennell DJ (2005) Intercentre reproducibility of magnetic resonance T2* measurements of myocardial iron in Thalassaemia. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 21(5):531–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-005-0651-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Byrum CE, MacFall JR, Charles HC, Chitilla VR, Boyko OB, Upchurch L, Smith JS, Rajagopalan P, Passe T, Kim D, Xanthakos S, Ranga K, Krishnan R (1996) Accuracy and reproducibility of brain and tissue volumes using a magnetic resonance segmentation method. Psychiatry Res 67(3):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Patryla L, Galeriua D (2011) Statistical performances measures—models comparison. CEA, ParisGoogle Scholar