Differentiating brain metastases from different pathological types of lung cancers using texture analysis of T1 postcontrast MR

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Volumn 76, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 1410-1419

  Li, Zhenjiang ^a,b   Mao, Yu ^b,c   Li, Hongsheng ^b   Yu, Gang ^a   Wan, Honglin ^d   Li, Baosheng ^a,b  

^a SOUTHEAST UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SHANDONG CANCER HOSPITAL AND INSTITUTE   (China)

^c TIANJIN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d SHANDONG NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

brain metastases; lung cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; texture analysis

Indexed keywords

BACKPROPAGATION; BRAIN; DIAGNOSIS; DISEASES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEAREST NEIGHBOR SEARCH; PATHOLOGY;

BACK-PROPAGATION ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BRAIN METASTASIS; K-NEAREST NEIGHBOR CLASSIFIERS (KNN); LUNG CANCER; MISCLASSIFICATION RATES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; TEXTURE ANALYSIS;

TEXTURES;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BRAIN METASTASIS; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER LOCALIZATION; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LARGE CELL LUNG CARCINOMA; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BRAIN TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LUNG TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SECONDARY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84991672118     PISSN: 07403194     EISSN: 15222594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26029     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Gavrilovic IT, Posner JB. Brain metastases: epidemiology and pathophysiology. J Neurooncol 2005;75:5–14.
2. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 1973;3:22.
3. Castellano G, Bonilha L, Li LM, Cendes F. Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1061–1069.
4. Holli K, Laaperi AL, Harrison L, et al. Characterization of breast cancer types by texture analysis of magnetic resonance images. Acad Radiol 2010;17:135–141.
5. Ba-Ssalamah A, Muin D, Schernthaner R, et al. Texture-based classification of different gastric tumors at contrast-enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:e537–e543.
6. Georgiadis P, Cavouras D, Kalatzis I, et al. Enhancing the discrimination accuracy between metastases, gliomas and meningiomas on brain MRI by volumetric textural features and ensemble pattern recognition methods. Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27:120–130.
7. De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M, et al. Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 2015;50:239–245.
8. Runge VM, Kirsch JE, Lee C. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3:233–239.
9. Mayerhoefer ME, Welsch GH, Riegler G, et al. Feasibility of texture analysis for the assessment of biochemical changes in meniscal tissue on T1 maps calculated from delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage data: comparison with conventional relaxation time measurements. Invest Radiol 2010;45:543–547.
10. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit 2009;42:1162–1171.
11. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, et al. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2012;53:693–700.
12. Balagurunathan Y, Gu Y, Wang H, et al. Reproducibility and prognosis of quantitative features extracted from CT images. Transl Oncol 2014;7:72–87.
13. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 2012;3:573–589.
14. Thomas AMK, Banerjee AK, Busch U, editors. Classic papers in modern diagnostic radiology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. 683 p.
15. Herlidou-Meme 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.
16. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2011;52:369–378.
17. Gibbs P, Turnbull LW. Textural analysis of contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:92–98.
18. Zacharaki EI, Wang S, Chawla S, et al. Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:1609–1618.
19. Daugman JG. Complete discrete 2-D Gabor transforms by neural networks for image analysis and compression. IEEE Trans Acoust 1988;36:1169–1179.
20. Junker K, Wiethege T, Muller KM. Pathology of small-cell lung cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2000;126:361–368.
21. Travis WD. Pathology of lung cancer. Clin Chest Med 2011;32:669–692.
22. Rezaei MK, Nolan NJ, Schwartz AM. Surgical pathology of lung cancer. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2013;34:770–786.