T2-weighted MRI-derived textural features reflect prostate cancer aggressiveness: preliminary results

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic relevance of T2-weighted (T2W) MRI-derived textural features relative to quantitative physiological parameters derived from diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI in Gleason score (GS) 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancers.Materials and Methods3T multiparametric-MRI was performed on 23 prostate cancer patients prior to prostatectomy. Textural features [angular second moment (ASM), contrast, correlation, entropy], apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and DCE pharmacokinetic parameters (Ktrans and Ve) were calculated from index tumours delineated on the T2W, DW, and DCE images, respectively. The association between the textural features and prostatectomy GS and the MRI-derived parameters, and the utility of the parameters in differentiating between GS 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancers were assessed statistically.ResultsASM and entropy correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with both GS and median ADC. Contrast correlated moderately with median ADC. The textural features correlated insignificantly with Ktrans and Ve. GS 4+3 cancers had significantly lower ASM and higher entropy than 3+4 cancers, but insignificant differences in median ADC, Ktrans, and Ve. The combined texture-MRI parameters yielded higher classification accuracy (91%) than the individual parameter sets.ConclusionT2W MRI-derived textural features could serve as potential diagnostic markers, sensitive to the pathological differences in prostate cancers.Key Points• T2W MRI-derived textural features correlate significantly with Gleason score and ADC. • T2W MRI-derived textural features differentiate Gleason score 3+4 from 4+3 cancers. • T2W image textural features could augment tumour characterization.

[1]  M S Cohen,et al.  Rapid and effective correction of RF inhomogeneity for high field magnetic resonance imaging , 2000, Human brain mapping.

[2]  H Sievänen,et al.  Detection of exercise load‐associated differences in hip muscles by texture analysis , 2015, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[3]  A. Oto,et al.  Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[5]  Katsuyoshi Ito,et al.  Diffusion‐weighted MRI and its role in prostate cancer , 2014, NMR in biomedicine.

[6]  Lars Boesen,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  A W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.

[8]  L. Egevad,et al.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. , 2016, European urology.

[9]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[10]  Kazuro Sugimura,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  James Diamond,et al.  The use of morphological characteristics and texture analysis in the identification of tissue composition in prostatic neoplasia. , 2004, Human pathology.

[12]  D. Collins,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  M.,et al.  Statistical and Structural Approaches to Texture , 2022 .

[14]  A. Zisman,et al.  Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? , 2007, Urologic oncology.

[15]  Jing Ma,et al.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  E. Wolin,et al.  Texture analysis of medical images in radiotherapy , 2016 .

[17]  Joseph O. Deasy,et al.  Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Ke Sheng,et al.  Correlation of Gleason Scores with Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Findings of Prostate Cancer , 2011, Advances in urology.

[19]  S. Verma,et al.  Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[21]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Principles and applications of diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer detection, staging, and treatment follow-up. , 2011, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[22]  H. Ozen,et al.  Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. , 2007, Urologic oncology.

[23]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy , 2004, BJU international.

[24]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  On the Adaptive Control of the False Discovery Rate in Multiple Testing With Independent Statistics , 2000 .

[25]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 tesla endorectal, in vivo T2‐weighted MR imagery , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[26]  D. Gleason,et al.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. , 1974, The Journal of urology.

[27]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  elastix: A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[28]  Sos S. Agaian,et al.  Gleason grade-based automatic classification of prostate cancer pathological images , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[29]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Discriminating Low-Grade From High-Grade Prostate Cancer , 2015, Investigative radiology.

[30]  Andriy Fedorov,et al.  Practical considerations in T1 mapping of prostate for dynamic contrast enhancement pharmacokinetic analyses. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[31]  A. Jackson,et al.  Experimentally‐derived functional form for a population‐averaged high‐temporal‐resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[32]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[33]  Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh,et al.  Multiwavelet grading of pathological images of prostate , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[34]  H. Hricak,et al.  Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores , 2015, European Radiology.

[35]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[36]  G. Brix,et al.  Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[37]  M. Stasi,et al.  Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  Stephan E Maier,et al.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: An update on state‐of‐the‐art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[39]  Geoffrey J. M. Parker,et al.  Tracer Kinetic Modelling for T1-Weighted DCE-MRI , 2005 .

[40]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[41]  G. Parker,et al.  Prostate cancer: evaluation of vascular characteristics with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging--initial experience. , 2004, Radiology.

[42]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Management: Current Status and Future Perspectives , 2015, Investigative radiology.

[43]  François Cornud,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2‐weighted, dynamic contrast‐enhanced and diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2011, BJU international.

[44]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. , 2013, European urology.

[45]  Grégoire Toussaint,et al.  Three dimensional texture analysis in MRI: a preliminary evaluation in gliomas. , 2003, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[46]  Ewald Moser,et al.  Bone Homogeneity Factor: An Advanced Tool for the Assessment of Osteoporotic Bone Structure in High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Images , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[47]  Steinar Lundgren,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 , 2014, NMR in biomedicine.

[48]  C. Chatwin,et al.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Texture Analysis of the Liver: Initial Assessment in Colorectal Cancer , 2011, Investigative radiology.

[49]  Pantelis Georgiadis,et al.  Enhancing the discrimination accuracy between metastases, gliomas and meningiomas on brain MRI by volumetric textural features and ensemble pattern recognition methods. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[50]  H. Rusinek,et al.  Whole‐lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[51]  Nick C. Fox,et al.  MR image texture analysis applied to the diagnosis and tracking of Alzheimer's disease , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.