Haralick textural features on T2-weighted MRI are associated with biochemical recurrence following radiotherapy for peripheral zone prostate cancer

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 103-117

  Gnep, Khémara ^a,b   Fargeas, Auréline ^a   Gutiérrez Carvajal, Ricardo E ^a   Commandeur, Frédéric ^a   Mathieu, Romain ^a,c   Ospina, Juan D ^a   Rolland, Yan ^b   Rohou, Tanguy ^b,c   Vincendeau, Sébastien ^c   Hatt, Mathieu ^d   Acosta, Oscar ^a   de Crevoisier, Renaud ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE RENNES 1   (France)

^b CENTRE EUGÈNE MARQUIS   (France)

^c PONTCHAILLOU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE BRETAGNE OCCIDENTALE   (France)

Author keywords

imaging biomarkers; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; radiomics; radiotherapy; T2 weighted imaging; texture analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CLINICAL FEATURE; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; GLEASON SCORE; HARALICK TEXTURAL FEATURE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; TUMOR VOLUME; BLOOD; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FOLLOW UP; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR RECURRENCE; VERY ELDERLY;

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY, CONFORMAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84976866378     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25335     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969–974.
2. Cahlon O, Hunt M, Zelefsky MJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: supportive data for prostate cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2008;18:48–57.
3. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:441–446.
4. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016;69:41–49.
5. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:1112–1121.
6. Nguyen PL, Whittington R, Koo S, et al. Quantifying the impact of seminal vesicle invasion identified using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging on PSA outcome after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol 2004;59:400–405.
7. McKenna DA, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al. Prostate cancer: role of pre-treatment MR in predicting outcome after external-beam radiation therapy-initial experience. Radiology 2008;247:141–146.
8. Joseph T, McKenna DA, Westphalen AC, et al. Pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging features of prostate cancer as predictors of response to external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2009;73:665–671.
9. Riaz N, Afaq A, Akin O, et al. Pretreatment endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging findings predict biochemical tumor control in prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2012;84:707–711.
10. Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA. Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology 2013;266:326–336.
11. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1973;SMC–3:610–621.
12. Harrison LC, Luukkaala T, Pertovaara H, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma response evaluation with MRI texture classification. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009;28:1.
13. Ahmed A, Gibbs P, Pickles M, Turnbull L. Texture analysis in assessment and prediction of chemotherapy response in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;8:89–101.
14. Liu J, Mao Y, Li Z, et al. Use of texture analysis based on contrast-enhanced MRI to predict treatment response to chemoradiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016.
15. Yang D, Rao G, Martinez J, Veeraraghavan A, Rao A. Evaluation of tumor-derived MRI-texture features for discrimination of molecular subtypes and prediction of 12-month survival status in glioblastoma. Med Phys 2015;42:6725–6735.
16. Vallieres M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, Naqa IE. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol 2015;60:5471.
17. Upadhaya T, Morvan Y, Stindel E, Le Reste P-J, Hatt M. A framework for multimodal imaging-based prognostic model building: preliminary study on multimodal MRI in glioblastoma multiforme. IRBM 2015;36:345–350.
18. Viswanath SE, Bloch NB, Chappelow JC, et al. Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 Tesla endorectal, in vivo T2-weighted magnetic resonance imagery. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;36:213–224.
19. Duda D, Kretowski M, Mathieu R, Crevoisier R de, Bezy-Wendling J. Multi-image texture analysis in classification of prostatic tissues from MRI. Preliminary results. In: Piêtka E, Kawa J, Wieclawek W, editors. Information technology and biomedicine, vol. 3. Springer International Publishing; 2014:139–150 [Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol. 283].
20. Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V, et al. Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys Med Biol 2015;0:2685.
21. Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T, 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. Eur Radiol 2015:1–11.
22. Abramowitz MC, Li T, Buyyounouski MK, et al. The Phoenix definition of biochemical failure predicts for overall survival in patients with prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;112:55–60.
23. Itatani R, Namimoto T, Yoshimura A, et al. Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Jpn J Radiol 2014;32:685–691.
24. Delgado-Gonzalo R, Thevenaz P, Seelamantula CS, Unser M. Snakes with an ellipse-reproducing property. IEEE Trans Image Process 2012;21:1258–1271.
25. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001;45:5–32.
26. Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS. Random survival forests. Ann Appl Stat 2008;2:841–860.
27. Datema FR, Moya A, Krause P, et al. Novel head and neck cancer survival analysis approach: random survival forests versus cox proportional hazards regression. Head Neck 2012;34:50–58.
28. Jolliffe I. Principal component analysis. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical behavior science. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
29. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361–387.
30. Lerski RA, Straughan K, Schad LR, Boyce D, Blüml S, Zuna I. MR image texture analysis—an approach to tissue characterization. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11:873–887.
31. Tsai F, Chang C-K, Rau J-Y, Lin T-H, Liu G-R. 3D computation of gray level co-occurrence in hyperspectral image cubes. In: Yuille AL, Zhu S-C, Cremers D, Wang Y, editors. Energy minimization methods in computer visualizaion pattern recognition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007:429–440 [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4679].
32. Hatt M, Majdoub M, Vallières M, et al. 18F-FDG PET uptake characterization through texture analysis: investigating the complementary nature of heterogeneity and functional tumor volume in a multi-cancer site patient cohort. J Nucl Med 2015;56:38–44.
33. D'Amico AV, Chen M-H, Renshaw AA, Loffredo B, Kantoff PW. Risk of prostate cancer recurrence in men treated with radiation alone or in conjunction with combined or less than combined androgen suppression therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2979–2983.
34. Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: Diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:1387–1394.
35. Giannini V, Vignati A, Mirasole S, et al. MR-T2-weighted signal intensity: a new imaging biomarker of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Vis 2014;0:1–5.
36. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011;259:775–784.
37. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011;258:488–495.
38. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1382–1390.
39. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259:453–461.
40. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, et al. 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 2013;267:787–796.
41. Michoux N, Van den Broeck S, Lacoste L, et al. Texture analysis on MR images helps predicting non-response to NAC in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2015;15:574.
42. Herlidou-Même S, Constans JM, Carsin B, et al. MRI texture analysis on texture test objects, normal brain and intracranial tumors. Magn Reson Imaging 2003;21:989–993.
43. Mayerhoefer ME, Breitenseher MJ, Kramer J, Aigner N, Hofmann S, Materka A. Texture analysis for tissue discrimination on T1-weighted MR images of the knee joint in a multicenter study: transferability of texture features and comparison of feature selection methods and classifiers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:674–680.
44. Mayerhoefer ME, Szomolanyi P, Jirak D, Materka A, Trattnig S. Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: an application-oriented study. Med Phys 2009;36:1236–1243.
45. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1373–1379.
46. Lv D, Guo X, Wang X, Zhang J, Fang J. Computerized characterization of prostate cancer by fractal analysis in MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 2009;30:161–168.
47. Niaf E, Rouvière O, Mège-Lechevallier F, Bratan F, Lartizien C. Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:3833–3851.