To investigate the value of texture analysis in magnetic resonance images for the evaluation of Gleason scores (GS) of prostate cancer.
METHODS:
Sixty-six prostate cancer patients are retrospective enrolled, which are divided into five groups namely, GS = 6, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8 and 9–10 according to postoperative pathological results. Extraction and analysis of texture features in T2-weighted MR imaging defined tumor region based on pathological specimen after operation are performed by texture software OmniKinetics. The values of texture are analyzed by single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Spearman correlation analysis is used to study the correlation between the value of texture and Gleason classification. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is then used to assess the ability of applying texture parameters to predict Gleason score of prostate cancer.
RESULTS:
Entropy value increases and energy value decreases as the elevation of Gleason score, both with statistical difference among five groups (F = 10.826, F = 2.796, P < 0.05). Energy value of group GS = 6 is significantly higher than that of groups GS = 8 and 9–10 (P < 0.005), which is similar between three groups (GS = 3 + 4, 8 and 9–10). The entropy and energy values correlate with GS (r = 0.767, r = –0.692, P < 0.05). Areas under ROC curves (AUC) of combination of entropy and energy are greater than that of using energy alone between groups GS = 6 and ≥7. Analogously, AUC of combination of entropy and energy are significantly higher than that of using entropy alone between groups GS≤3 + 4 and ≥4 + 3, as well as between groups GS≤4 + 3 and ≥8.
CONCLUSION:
Texture analysis on T2-weighted images of prostate cancer can evaluate Gleason score, especially using the combination of entropy and energy rendering better diagnostic efficiency.
JemalA., BrayF., CenterM.M., et al., Forman Global cancer statistics, CA Cancer J ClIN61 (2011), 69–90.
2.
GondoT., HricakH., SalaE., et al., Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer, Eur Radiol (12) (2014), 3161–3170.
ZhangY.D., WangQ., WuC.J., et al., The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer, Eur Radiol25(4) (2015), 994–1004.
5.
WuC.J., WangQ., LiH., et al., DWI-associated entire-tumor histogram analysis for the differentiation of low-grade prostate cancer from intermediate - high –grade prostate cancer, Abdom Imaging40(8) (2015), 3214–3221.
6.
HambrockT., SomfordD.M., HuismanH.J., et al., Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer, Radiology259(2) (2011), 453–461.
7.
TiongH.Y., LiewL.C., SamuelM., et al., A meta-analysis of local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis10(2) (2007), 127–136.
8.
PesapaneF., PatellaF., FumarolaE.M., et al., Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion weighted Imaging (DWI) in the periferic prostate cancer detection and stratification, Med Oncol34(3) (2017), 35.
9.
NiuX.K., ChenZ.F., ChenL., et al., Clinical application of biparametric MRI texture analysis for detection and evaluation of high-grade prostate cancer in zone-specific regions, AJR Am J Roentgenol210(3) (2018), 549–556.
10.
ScheenenT.W., RosenkrantzA.B., HaiderM.A., et al., Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management: current status and future perspectives, Invest Radiol50(9) (2015), 594–600.
11.
VosE.K., KobusT., LitjensG.J., et al., Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer, Invest Radiol50(8) (2015), 490–497.
12.
RosenkrantzA.B., TrioloM.J., MelamedJ., et al., Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy, J Magn Reson Imaging41(3) (2015), 708–714.
13.
EpsteinJ.I., ZelefskyM.J., SjobergD.D., et al., A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score, Eur Urol69(3) (2016), 428–35.
14.
TeruelJ.R., HeldahlM.G., GoaP.E., et al., Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI texture analysis for pretreatment prediction of clinical and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer, NMR Biomed27(8) (2014), 887–896.
15.
ShuZ., FangS., DingZ., et al., Application value of texture analysis of magnetic resonance images in prediction of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy efficacy for rectal cancer, Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi21(9) (2018), 1051–1058.
16.
ZhangH., SunZ., ChengY., MaoG., A pilot study of radiomics technology based on X-ray mammography in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, J Xray Sci Technol27(3) (2019), 485–492.
17.
WangG.R., WangZ.W., Jin.Z.Y., Application and progress of texture analysis in the therapeutic effect prediction and prognosis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for colorectal cancer, Chin Med Sci J34(1) (2019), 45–50.
18.
SunZ., HuS., LiJ., et al., Radiomics study for differentiating gastric cancer from gastric stromal tumor based on contrast-enhanced CT images, J Xray Sci Technol27(6) (2019), 1021–1031.
19.
WeinrebJ.C., BarentszJ.O., ChoykeP.L., et al., PI-RADS Prostate Imaging –Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2, Eur Urol69(1) (2016), 16–40.
20.
HegdeJ.V., MulkernR.V., PanychL.P., et al., Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer, J Magn Reson Imaging37(5) (2013), 1035–1054.
21.
YamadaY., SakamotoS., ShimazakiJ., et al., Significant prognostic difference between Grade Group 4 and 5 in the International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System for High Grade Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastasis, Prostate Int5(4) (2017), 143–148.
22.
HuynenA.L., GiesenR.J., DelarosetteJ.J., et al., Analysis of ultrasonographic prostate images for the detection of prostatic-carcinoma - the automated urologic diagnostic expert-system, Ultrasound Med Biol20(1) (1994), 1–10.
23.
NiafE., RouviereO., Mege-LechevallierF., et al., Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI, Phys Med Biol57(12) (2012), 3833–3851.
24.
AhmedA., GibbsP., PicklesM., et al., Texture analysis in assessment and prediction of chemotherapy response in breast cancer, J Magn Reson Imaging38(1) (2013), 89–101.
25.
DonatiO.F., MazaheriY., AfaqA., et al., Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient, Radiology271(1) (2014), 143–152.
26.
LangerD.L., van der KwastT.H., EvansA.J., et al., Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers, Radiology249(3) (2008), 900–908.
27.
PatelP., WangS., Siddiqui.M.M., The Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), Urol Rep20(10) (2019), 60.
28.
GiambellucaD., CannellaR., VernuccioF., et al., PI-RADS 3 lesions: role of prostate MRI texture analysis in the identification of prostate cancer, Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2019.10.009
29.
DuvauferrierR., BezyJ., BertaudV., et al., Texture analysis software: integration with a radiological workstation, Stud Health Technol Inform180 (2012), 1030–1034.
30.
DavnallF., YiSC.S., LjungqvistG., et al., Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice?Insights Imaging3(6) (2012), 573–589.
31.
LiuL., LiuY., XuL., et al., Application of texture analysis based on apparent diffusion coefficient maps in discriminating different stages of rectal cancer, J Magn Reson Imaging45(6) (2017), 1798–1808.
32.
TsaoC.K., GrayK.P., NakabayashiM., et al., Patients with biopsy Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer have significantly worse outcomes compared to patients with Gleason 8 disease, The Journal of urology194(1) (2015), 91–97.
33.
EpsteinJ.I., ZelefskyM.J., SjobergD.D., et al., A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score, Urol69(03) (2016), 428–435.
34.
TabayoyongW., AbouassalyR., Prostate cancer screening and the associated controversy, Clin North Am95(5) (2015), 1023–1039.
35.
QiY., ZhangS., WeiJ., et al., Multiparametric MRI-based radiomics for prostate cancer screening with PSA in 4–10 ng/mL to reduce unnecessary biopsies, J Magn Reson Imaging51(6) (2020), 1890–1899.
