Influence of gray level and space discretization on brain tumor heterogeneity measures obtained from magnetic resonance images

PURPOSE Tumor heterogeneity in medical imaging is a current research trend due to its potential relationship with tumor malignancy. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of dynamic range and matrix size changes on the results of different heterogeneity measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four patients harboring three glioblastomas and one metastasis were considered. Sixteen textural heterogeneity measures were computed for each patient, with a configuration including co-occurrence matrices (CM) features (local heterogeneity) and run-length matrices (RLM) features (regional heterogeneity). The coefficient of variation measured agreement between the textural measures in two types of experiments: (i) fixing the matrix size and changing the dynamic range and (ii) fixing the dynamic range and changing the matrix size. RESULTS None of the measures considered were robust under dynamic range changes. The CM Entropy and the RLM high gray-level run emphasis (HGRE) were the outstanding textural features due to their robustness under matrix size changes. Also, the RLM low gray-level run emphasis (LGRE) provided robust results when the dynamic range considered was sufficiently high (more than 8 levels). All of the remaining textural features were not robust. CONCLUSION Tumor texture studies based on images with different characteristics (e.g. multi-center studies) should first fix the dynamic range to be considered. For studies involving images of different resolutions either (i) only robust measures should be used (in our study CM entropy, RLM HGRE and/or RLM LGRE) or (ii) images should be resampled to match those of the lowest resolution before computing the textural features.

[1]  R. Jeraj,et al.  Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[2]  W. Niessen,et al.  Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[3]  M. Soussan,et al.  Relationship between Tumor Heterogeneity Measured on FDG-PET/CT and Pathological Prognostic Factors in Invasive Breast Cancer , 2014, PloS one.

[4]  Thomas Tessamma,et al.  Automatic Detection and Classification of Glioma Tumors using Statistical Features , 2014 .

[5]  Luke Macyszyn,et al.  Imaging patterns predict patient survival and molecular subtype in glioblastoma via machine learning techniques. , 2016, Neuro-oncology.

[6]  Frank J. Brooks,et al.  On some misconceptions about tumor heterogeneity quantification , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[7]  Dimitri Van De Ville,et al.  Three-dimensional solid texture analysis in biomedical imaging: Review and opportunities , 2014, Medical Image Anal..

[8]  L. Pusztai,et al.  Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  P. Lambin,et al.  Identification of residual metabolic-active areas within NSCLC tumours using a pre-radiotherapy FDG-PET-CT scan: a prospective validation. , 2012, Lung cancer.

[10]  Luc Bidaut,et al.  The influence of field strength and different clinical breast MRI protocols on the outcome of texture analysis using foam phantoms. , 2011, Medical physics.

[11]  Marion Smits,et al.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[12]  Tej D. Azad,et al.  Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities , 2015, Science Translational Medicine.

[13]  G. Collewet,et al.  Influence of MRI acquisition protocols and image intensity normalization methods on texture classification. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[14]  W. Cavenee,et al.  Heterogeneity maintenance in glioblastoma: a social network. , 2011, Cancer research.

[15]  C. Chatwin,et al.  Hepatic entropy and uniformity: additional parameters that can potentially increase the effectiveness of contrast enhancement during abdominal CT. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[16]  George F. Reed,et al.  Use of Coefficient of Variation in Assessing Variability of Quantitative Assays , 2002, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology.

[17]  K. Miles,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival , 2012, European Radiology.

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

[19]  M. Hatt,et al.  Reproducibility of Tumor Uptake Heterogeneity Characterization Through Textural Feature Analysis in 18F-FDG PET , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  J. Borrás,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity in glioblastoma assessed by MRI texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. , 2016, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[22]  Balaji Ganeshan,et al.  Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage , 2010, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[23]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  The implications of clonal genome evolution for cancer medicine. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[26]  Jacob D. Furst,et al.  RUN-LENGTH ENCODING FOR VOLUMETRIC TEXTURE , 2004 .

[27]  D. Townsend,et al.  Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  N. Just,et al.  Improving tumour heterogeneity MRI assessment with histograms , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[29]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Radiomics: the process and the challenges. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[30]  J. Soto,et al.  Utility of texture analysis for quantifying hepatic fibrosis on proton density MRI , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  F. Cendes,et al.  Texture analysis of medical images. , 2004, Clinical radiology.

[32]  Xiaoou Tang,et al.  Texture information in run-length matrices , 1998, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[33]  P. Lambin,et al.  The ESTRO Breur Lecture 2009. From population to voxel-based radiotherapy: exploiting intra-tumour and intra-organ heterogeneity for advanced treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[34]  Andrzej Materka,et al.  Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: an application-oriented study. , 2009, Medical physics.

[35]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[36]  Sang Min Lee,et al.  Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography Texture Features in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancers Treated With Definitive Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy , 2015, Investigative radiology.

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

[38]  Juan J. Martinez,et al.  Evaluation of tumor-derived MRI-texture features for discrimination of molecular subtypes and prediction of 12-month survival status in glioblastoma. , 2015, Medical physics.