Estimation of breast tumour tissue diffusion parameters from histological images and Monte-Carlo simulations
David Naves Sousa1, Filipa Borlinhas1, and Hugo Alexandre Ferreira1

1Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Synopsis

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging is a MRI technique that is able to distinguish between benign and malignant breast tumours via the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC). Nevertheless, this parameter provides very limited information regarding tissue microstructure. Here, is presented an approach to estimate the intracellular (Di) and extracellular (De) diffusion coefficients, and cell membrane permeability of tumour tissues which makes use of known ADC values, histological images and Monte-Carlo simulations of diffusion processes. Results show that distinct combinations of (Di, De, P) correlate with tumour type, and that a decreased De was observed in malignant tumours in agreement with known extracellular matrix changes.

Introduction

In biological tissues, coefficients of intracellular and extracellular diffusion (Di and De respectively) and permeability of cell membranes (P) are not exactly known, and these are expected to differ between benign and malignant tumours.

In previous studies it was possible to differentiate between benign and malignant breast tumours with Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DW-MRI), namely using the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) estimated from the monoexponential diffusion model.1,2 However, this model is not able to estimate the Di, De and P values of a chosen region-of-interest in the MR images. Recently tough, Monte-Carlo simulations (MCS) of diffusion processes have shown to be useful in characterizing simulated histological environments at the microstructural level.3 Here, the same method was applied to real histological images corresponding to malignant and benign breast tumours in order to estimate combinations of Di, De and P values that could explain the observed ADC values and thus further characterise tumour tissues.

Methods

Histological images were obtained for benign (n=3) and malignant (n=3) tumours from a dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification4. These images were then binarised using Matlab in order to define cellular and extracellular matrix compartments. MCS of diffusion based on the methods used by C-Y Lee et al.3 were performed in each processed image (Fig. 1). Histological images had dimensions ranging from 0.34 mm to 1.35 mm, and had a mean intracellular volume fraction of 0.175. 10,000 dimensionless random walkers with a time-step of 2.5x10-5 s were placed in the cell environments and performed a walk of 0.0263 s. 10 values of Di and De each ranging between 0 and 3x10-3 mm2/s were tested in all possible combinations with 10 values of P ranging between 0.001 mm/s and 0.1 mm/s (a total of 1000 combinations). For each lesion, results of MCS for the corresponding histological images were compared with the typical values of ADC, 1.43±0.25 mm2/s for benign tumours and 0.88±0.17 mm2/s for malignant tumours2, and possible (Di,De,P) combinations were analysed.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the average±standard deviation values of Di, De and P obtained from the tested combinations of these parameters in the MCS for each histological image. Any combination of these parameters which falls within the range of the associated uncertainties must result in the expected values of D. Interestingly, there are clearly distinct regions of possible values of De for each lesion (Fig 2). The De obtained for malignant tumors are lower than the values obtained for the benign lesions. This could be explained by the characteristic higher cellularity5 of the malignant lesions, leading to an increase in the number of barriers for water diffusion in the extracellular medium and, consequently, reducing the diffusion coefficient of this compartment. Additionally, it is known that malignant tumours are often associated with changes in the extracellular matrix, namely the growth of fibrous or connective tissue (desmoplastic reaction) which results in a further restriction of water molecules’ diffusion6. The intracellular environment of cancer cells is not well known, and results did not show significant differences in Di between benign and malignant lesions. Nonetheless, a trend towards smaller values of Di may be observed in malignant tumours, which may be correlated to the cell heterogeneity associated to malignant tumours5 and cell mitosis. No significant differences were also observed for P regarding tumour type. A higher variability is nonetheless observed for malignant lesions, which may reflect tumour heterogeneity5 and/or changes on cells’ transport dynamics of these tumours7.

Overall, it can be observed that the presented approach is able to translate changes in the extracellular medium but is not sufficiently sensitive to depict significant changes in Di and P, which could be expected. This may be the result of the low number of images studied and, especially, of the oversimplified processing of the histological images (binarisation only) prior to MCS.

Conclusion

MCS were used on histological images of benign and malignant breast tumour tissues to estimate the parameters Di, De and P that characterise diffusion in each type of tumor tissue. It was observed that distinct combinations of these parameters correlate with different types of tumors. In particular, De revealed to be very distinct for benign and malignant tumors in agreement with known extracellular matrix differences. Presently, MCS with more images with more complex processing are being done in order to improve the sensitivity to Di and P changes.

Acknowledgements

Research supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) and Ministério da Ciência e Educação (MCE) Portugal (PIDDAC) under grant UID/BIO/00645/2013.

References

1. Guo Y, Cai Y-Q, Cai Z-L, et al. Differentiation of Clinically Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions Using Diffusion-Weighted Imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16:172–8.

2. Borlinhas F, Ferreira HA. Quantificação por imagem ponderada em difusão ( DWI ) das lesões tumorais da mama - Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging ( DWI ) in breast cancer. Saúde Tecnol. 2012; (October):24–30.

3. Lee C-Y, Bennet KM, Debbins JP. Sensitivities of statistical distribution model and diffusion kurtosis model in varying microstructural environments: a Monte Carlo study. J Magn Reson. 2013; 230:19–26.

4. Spanhol F, Oliveira LS, Petitjean C, et al. A Dataset for Breast Cancer Histopathological Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (TBME), accepted for publication.

5. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74.

6. Conklin MW, Keely PJ. Why the stroma matters in breast cancer: insights into breast cancer patient outcomes through the examination of stromal biomarkers. Cell Adhesion & Migration. 2012; 6(3):249-260.

7. Ziegler YS, Moresco JJ, Tu PG, et al. Plasma membrane proteomics of human breast cancer cell lines identifies potential targets for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. PlosOne. 2014;9(7): e102341.

Figures

Figure 1. Comparison between one histological image of a benign tumour (on top) and its corresponding processed image.

Table 1. Mean values of the resulting combinations of intracellular (Di) and extracellular (De) diffusion coefficients, and cell membrane permeability (P) from Monte-Carlo Simulations for each histological image. B1-3: Benign tumours; M1-3: Malignant tumours.

Figure 2. Representation of the ranges of possible (Di,De) combinations for each histological image. Benign tumours in red, malignant tumours in blue.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2474