Assessment of tissue heterogeneity using diffusion tensor and diffusion kurtosis imaging for grading gliomas

IntroductionIn this work, we aim to assess the significance of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters in grading gliomas.MethodsRetrospective 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.ResultsEntropy, 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).ConclusionIn summary, the studies demonstrated great potential towards automating grading gliomas by employing tumour heterogeneity measures on DTI and DKI parameters.

[1]  Michael Deppe,et al.  Correcting eddy current and motion effects by affine whole‐brain registrations: Evaluation of three‐dimensional distortions and comparison with slicewise correction , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  J D Pickard,et al.  Diffusion tensor imaging of brain tumours at 3T: a potential tool for assessing white matter tract invasion? , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[3]  Jinyuan Zhou,et al.  Evaluation of human brain tumor heterogeneity using multiple T1‐based MRI signal weighting approaches , 2008, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  P. Basser,et al.  Estimation of the effective self-diffusion tensor from the NMR spin echo. , 1994, Journal of magnetic resonance. Series B.

[5]  Balaji Ganeshan,et al.  Colorectal cancer: texture analysis of portal phase hepatic CT images as a potential marker of survival. , 2009, Radiology.

[6]  John Russell,et al.  Dysmyelination Revealed through MRI as Increased Radial (but Unchanged Axial) Diffusion of Water , 2002, NeuroImage.

[7]  Bal Sanghera,et al.  Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? , 2012, Insights into Imaging.

[8]  T. Hirai,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (adc) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[9]  Seung Hong Choi,et al.  Gliomas: Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging--correlation with tumor grade. , 2011, Radiology.

[10]  R. Agid,et al.  Preoperative Grading of Presumptive Low-Grade Astrocytomas on MR Imaging: Diagnostic Value of Minimum Apparent Diffusion Coefficient , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[11]  Jan Sijbers,et al.  Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. , 2012, Radiology.

[12]  K. Polyak,et al.  Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? , 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[13]  Y. Zhang,et al.  Diffusion Tensor MR Imaging of Cerebral Gliomas: Evaluating Fractional Anisotropy Characteristics , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[14]  Sang Joon Park,et al.  Glioma: Application of Whole-Tumor Texture Analysis of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for the Evaluation of Tumor Heterogeneity , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  V. Radhakrishnan,et al.  Can diffusion tensor metrics help in preoperative grading of diffusely infiltrating astrocytomas? A retrospective study of 36 cases , 2010, Neuroradiology.

[16]  Balaji Ganeshan,et al.  Imaging heterogeneity in gliomas using texture analysis. , 2011 .

[17]  Andrea Bergmann,et al.  Statistical Parametric Mapping The Analysis Of Functional Brain Images , 2016 .

[18]  Sabine Van Huffel,et al.  Integrating diffusion kurtosis imaging, dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI, and short echo time chemical shift imaging for grading gliomas. , 2014, Neuro-oncology.

[19]  B. Scheithauer,et al.  The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system , 2007, Acta Neuropathologica.

[20]  Martin J. van den Bent,et al.  Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J. Helpern,et al.  Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  P. Basser,et al.  Toward a quantitative assessment of diffusion anisotropy , 1996, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[23]  N. Hopf,et al.  Contribution of diffusion tensor imaging to delineation of gliomas and glioblastomas , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  Wenzhen Zhu,et al.  Diffusion kurtosis imaging can efficiently assess the glioma grade and cellular proliferation , 2015, Oncotarget.

[25]  Ed X. Wu,et al.  Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis , 2008, NeuroImage.

[26]  A. Server,et al.  Analysis of diffusion tensor imaging metrics for gliomas grading at 3 T. , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[27]  P. Basser,et al.  Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the human brain. , 1996, Radiology.

[28]  Wilhelm Burger,et al.  Digital Image Processing - An Algorithmic Introduction using Java , 2008, Texts in Computer Science.

[29]  A. Lagares,et al.  The Added Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient to Cerebral Blood Volume in the Preoperative Grading of Diffuse Gliomas , 2012, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[30]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  Computer Vision , 2001 .

[31]  Christopher Nimsky,et al.  Gliomas: histopathologic evaluation of changes in directionality and magnitude of water diffusion at diffusion-tensor MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[32]  H. Lanfermann,et al.  Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences. , 2010, Radiology.

[33]  S. Maier,et al.  Characterization of central nervous system structures by magnetic resonance diffusion anisotropy , 2004, Neurochemistry International.

[34]  Peter McGraw,et al.  Peritumoral brain regions in gliomas and meningiomas: investigation with isotropic diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion-tensor MR imaging. , 2004, Radiology.

[35]  Toshinori Hirai,et al.  Usefulness of diffusion‐weighted MRI with echo‐planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[36]  Paul S Tofts,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient histograms may predict low‐grade glioma subtype , 2007, NMR in biomedicine.

[37]  B. Ardekani,et al.  Estimation of tensors and tensor‐derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[38]  Hiroyuki Kabasawa,et al.  Diffusion tensor imaging for preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in gliomas , 2005, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.