Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores

European Radiology

Volumn 25, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 2840-2850

  Wibmer, Andreas ^a   Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Gondo, Tatsuo ^a   Matsumoto, Kazuhiro ^a   Veeraraghavan, Harini ^a   Fehr, Duc ^a   Zheng, Junting ^a   Goldman, Debra ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya ^a   Fine, Samson W ^a   Reuter, Victor E ^a   Eastham, James ^a   Sala, Evis ^a   Vargas, Hebert Alberto ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Computer assisted; Gleason grading; Image processing; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasm

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; ENERGY; ENTROPY; GLEASON SCORE; HARALICK TEXTURE ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER GRADING; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84941420890     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3701-8     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Gondo T, Hricak H, Sala E et al (2014) 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. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3367-7
2. Salami SS, Vira MA, Turkbey B et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging outperforms the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer 120:2876–2882
3. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:126–131
4. NICE (2014) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Available via http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG175. Accessed 2015/01/31
5. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137
6. NCCN NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Prostate Cancer Version 1.2015 Available via http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 2015/01/31
7. Thrift AP, Whiteman DC (2013) Can we really predict risk of cancer? Cancer Epidemiol 37:349–352
8. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
9. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, Ishill NM, Kuroiwa K, Hricak H (2008) Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 246:168–176
10. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461
11. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782
12. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H et al (2008) Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging–correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 246:480–488
13. Jung SI, Donati OF, Vargas HA, Goldman D, Hricak H, Akin O (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 269:493–503
14. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784
15. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A et al (2013) Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness: Assessment with Whole-Lesion Histogram Analysis of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130973:130973
16. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C et al (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score–a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267:787–796
17. Coffey N, Schieda N, Cron G, Gulavita P, Mai KT, Flood TA (2014) Multi-parametric (mp) MRI of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:24694
18. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A et al (2014) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152
19. Haralick RM (1979) Statistical and Structural Approaches to Texture. Proc IEEE 67:786–804
20. Haralick RM, Shanmuga K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 3:610–621
21. Niaf E, Rouviere O, Mege-Lechevallier F, Bratan F, Lartizien C (2012) Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI. Phys Med Biol 57:3833–3851
22. Lopes DFD, Ramalho GLB, de Medeiros FNS, Costa RCS, Araujo RTS (2006) Combining features to improve oil spill classification in SAR images. Proc SSPR 4109:928–936
23. Conners RW, Trivedi MM, Harlow CA (1984) Segmentation of a high-resolution urban scene using texture operators. Comp Vision Graphics Image Process 25:273–310
24. Oczeretko E, Borowska M, Kitlas A, Borusiewicz A, Sobolewska-Siemieniuk M (2008) Fractal analysis of medical images in irregular regions of interest. IEEE Intl Conf Bioinforma BioEngineering. 1–6
25. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M et al (2011) Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 52:369–378
26. Tan S, Kligerman S, Chen W et al (2013) Spatial-temporal [(1)(8)F]FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:1375–1382
27. Yoo TS, Ackerman MJ, Lorensen WE et al (2002) Engineering and algorithm design for an image processing Api: a technical report on ITK–the Insight Toolkit. Stud Health Technol Inform 85:586–592
28. Martin K, Hoffman B (2008) Mastering Cmake: a cross-platform build system, 4th edn. Kitware Inc., New York
29. Huynen AL, Giesen RJB, Delarosette JJMCH, Aarnink RG, Debruyne FMJ, Wijkstra H (1994) Analysis of ultrasonographic prostate images for the detection of prostatic-carcinoma - the automated urologic diagnostic expert-system. Ultrasound Med Biol 20:1–10
30. Viswanath SE, Bloch NB, Chappelow JC et al (2012) Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 tesla endorectal, in vivo T2-weighted MR imagery. J Magn Res Imaging 36:213–224