Gabriel Nketiah1, Mattijs Elschot1, Eugene Kim 1, Tone Frost Bathen 1, and Kirsten Margrete Selnæs1
1Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Synopsis
The complexity
of the prostatic tissue requires sensitive, accurate and reproducible
assessment methods for aggressiveness of prostatic carcinomas, especially in differentiating
between Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 tumors. We evaluated the applicability of T2W
MRI-derived textural entropy as a potential marker for assessing prostate cancer
aggressiveness. Our study found textural entropy to correlate moderately positive and negative with Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC),
respectively. T2W image textural entropy differentiated Gleason score 3+4 and
4+3 tumors with higher accuracy than other MRI-derived parameters (ADC, Ktrans
and Ve), indicating the potential of MRI texture analysis in
prostate cancer assessment. Background
Due to the
complexity of the prostatic tissue, there is a substantial overlap in the diagnostic performance for
tumors with Gleason score 3+4 and Gleason score 4+3. This may lead to
under-treatment or over-treatment of prostatic carcinomas, since the latter is
considered to be more aggressive. Texture analysis probes the spatial
variation in pixel intensities to quantify intuitive qualities that characterize the inherent
texture of objects in an image 1.
In this study, we evaluated T2-weighted image (T2WI) textural
entropy – the measure of disorderness or complexity in the T2W image based on
the spatial distribution of pixel intensities, as a potential marker for
assessing prostate cancer aggressiveness, especially in separating Gleason
score 3+4 from Gleason score 4+3 tumors.
Materials
and Methods
Twenty-three patients with biopsy
proven prostate cancer underwent multi-parametric prostate MRI (Table 1) on a
3T scanner (Magnetom Trio; Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen,
Germany) prior to radical
prostatectomy.
For each
patient, an experienced pathologist outlined and graded 2 cancer foci in whole-mount
histology slides. The histopathology slide with the largest cancer area was
spatially matched to the closest axial T2W image
(Figure 1A) using anatomical landmarks. Tumor regions of interest (ROIs) were
delineated in the T2W images, and then transferred to the respective DW and DCE
images (Figure 1B) via registration 3.
Two-dimensional gray level co-occurrence matrix-based
textural entropy 4, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and volume
transfer constant (Ktrans) and volume of extravascular extracellular
space per unit volume of tissue (Ve) were calculated from the T2W, DW
and DCE image ROIs, respectively (Figure 1C).
The T2WI-derived textural entropy was correlated with the Gleason scores
from the histology using point-biserial correlation and with the quantitative MR physiological parameters (median ADC, Ktrans and
Ve) using Spearman correlation. Furthermore, its capability in differentiating between Gleason scores 3+4 and
4+3 tumors was evaluated
and compared to that of the quantitative MRI parameters using Mann-Whitney U test (α=0.05) and receiver-operating characteristic curve
(ROC) analysis.
Results
A
total of 23 tumor regions (mean diameter = 22.2 mm; range = 10-40 mm) were analyzed,
14 of which were Gleason score 3+4 tumors and nine 4+3 tumors. Seventy-eight percent of
the tumors were located in the peripheral zone and 22% in the central gland. T2WI textural entropy correlated significantly with Gleason score
(rpb = 0.555, p = 0.006) and ADC (rho =
0.595, p = 0.005), but not with Ktrans or Ve (Figure 2).
T2WI
textural entropy was found to increase with increasing Gleason grade and
decreasing ADC. Only T2WI textural entropy was found to differ significantly
between Gleason score 3+4 and Gleason score 4+3 tumors (Figure 3). The area
under the ROC curve was highest for T2WI textural entropy when discriminating these
two prostate tumor patterns (Figure 4).
Discussion
This study evaluated the utility of T2WI textural
entropy in prostate cancer aggressiveness assessment. Texture analysis on T2W
images could reveal details sensitive to subtle changes in the tissues, since these
images depict prostate structures with both high signal-to-noise ratio and high
spatial resolution. In addition, T2W
images are easy to acquire, suitable for every patient and less prone to acquisition
and technical artefacts compared to DW and DCE images.
Increased prostate
cancer aggressiveness is characterized by increased cellularity with decreased extracellular
space (i.e. low ADC) 5, as well as deterioration of the architectural
patterns depicting cellular integrity of the prostate gland due to poor differentiation
and glandular structure deformation (i.e. high Gleason grade) 6. All of these could result in increased tumor
heterogeneity, which is reflected by increased textural entropy in the lesion,
possibly explaining the observed moderately positive and negative correlations with
Gleason score and ADC, respectively.
Despite the relatively low number of patients
in our cohort, textural entropy was capable of differentiating Gleason scores
3+4 and 4+3 tumors with higher accuracy than
ADC, Ktrans and Ve, indicating the potential of MRI
texture analysis in prostate cancer assessment.
Conclusion
The current study indicates that T2WI-derived textural
entropy could serve as a diagnostic marker in prostate cancer, sensitive to
pathological differences in prostate cancer lesions as indicated by the Gleason
grading system. However, there is the need for further studies in a larger cohort to validate these findings
Acknowledgements
This study was funded The Norwegian Cancer SocietyReferences
1. G. Castellano, L. Bonilha,
L. M. Li, F. Cendes. Texture analysis of medical images. Clin.
Radiol. 2004;59(12):1061–9.
2. D. F. Gleason and G. T.
Mellinger. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined
histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 2002;167(2):953–958.
3. S. Klein, M. Staring, K.
Murphy, et al. elastix: a toolbox for
intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 2010;29(1):196–205.
4. R. M. Haralick, K.
Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE
Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1973;3(6):610–621.
5. T. Tamada, T. Sone, Y. Jo, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI and its role in prostate
cancer. NMR Biomed. 2014;27(1):25–38.
6. P. a Humphrey. Gleason
grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod. Pathol. 2004;17(3):292–306.