Stefanie Hectors1, Mathew Cherny2, Sara Lewis1,2, Kanika Mahajan3, Ardeshir Rastinehad3, Ashutosh Tewari3, and Bachir Taouli1,2
1Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 2Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 3Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
Synopsis
The
goal of this study was to assess the association of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)
radiomic features with histopathological and genomic markers of prostate cancer
(PCa) aggressiveness. mpMRI histogram and texture features showed multiple
significant correlations with Gleason score, modified Gleason score Grade Group
and genomics Decipher risk score. General linear models showed high accuracy
for prediction of the histopathological and genomics features (accuracy range
0.77-0.94). The results
indicate that MRI radiomics analysis is promising for noninvasive assessment of
PCa aggressiveness on the histopathological and genomics levels.
Purpose
There
is a need for accurate noninvasive techniques for the determination of prostate
cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. MRI techniques such as diffusion kurtosis imaging
(DKI) and MRI texture analysis have shown great promise for the differentiation
between aggressive and nonaggressive PCa cancers 1,2. In addition to the commonly used Gleason score, there is
considerable interest in more objective measurements of PCa aggressiveness from
biopsy and/or prostatectomy specimens. PCa genomics classifier Decipher has shown
to be predictive of adverse outcome after prostatectomy 3. The goal of our study was to assess the correlation
between mpMRI features and histopathological and genomics markers of PCa
aggressiveness. Methods
48 PCa men with PCa (mean age 63y, range 41-76y) were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent mpMRI, including T2WI and high b-value DWI (b-values 50, 1000, 1600, 2000 s/mm2) at 3.0T, before undergoing prostatectomy. Clinical MRI assessment of the index lesions was done using PI-RADSv2 scoring system 4. Modeling of the DWI/DKI data was performed to measure monoexponential ADCME (using b-values up to 1000 s/mm2), ADCDKI (using all b values) and kurtosis parameter K. Radiomics features, including histogram [mean, SD, kurtosis, skewness] and Haralick texture features 5 were extracted from ROIs in the index lesions on the DKI parameter maps and T2WI. Histopathological aggressiveness was measured by Gleason score and modified Gleason score (Grade Group). Decipher genomics testing of index PCa lesions was performed in 44 patients on prostatectomy specimens. Correlation analysis was performed between each of PI-RADS and mpMRI metrics with Decipher risk scores, Gleason score and Grade Group. General linear models with step-wise feature selection were built to assess the accuracy of the radiomics features for prediction of Gleason score ≥7, Grade Group ≥3 and Decipher ≥0.45, the latter reflective of intermediate-to-high risk of metastases development after prostatectomy 6. Results
Mean
tumor size was 1.5±0.7 cm (range 0.5-3.7 cm). Distribution of Gleason scores and
Grade Groups was: Gleason 6 (n=6), Gleason 7 (n=31), Gleason 8 (n=3), Gleason 9
(n=8); Grade Group (1=6); Grade Group 2 (n=23); Grade Group 3 (n=8); Grade
Group 4 (n=3); Grade Group 5 (n=8). Average Decipher score was 0.53±0.19 (range 0.17-0.95). Significant correlations between
mpMRI features and histopathological and genomics PCa features are shown in Figure 1. mpMRI histogram features,
particularly from K maps showed multiple significant correlations, including
significant positive correlations of mean K with Decipher score (r=0.318, P=0.035)
and Grade Group (r=0.336, P=0.018). Texture features also exhibited significant
associations with histopathological and genomics features, including a
significant positive correlation between Decipher and ADCME difference
entropy (r=0.373, P=0.013; Figure 2) and significant negative correlation between Grade
Group and T2W maximal correlation (r=-0.413, P=0.003). PI-RADS showed a significant positive correlation with
Gleason score (r=0.391, P=0.027) but not with Grade Group (P=0.09) and Decipher
(P=0.320). The general linear models showed an accuracy of 0.94, 0.84 and 0.77
for prediction of Gleason score ≥7 (model parameters ADCME SD, ADCDKI
sum entropy, T2W variance), Grade Group ≥3 (model parameters ADCME maximal
correlation, T2W kurtosis and T2W maximal correlation) and Decipher≥0.45 (model
parameters ADCME difference entropy, T2W variance, T2W sum average),
respectively. Discussion and Conclusion
Our results
show that mpMRI radiomics analysis is promising for noninvasive prediction of
PCa aggressiveness on the histopathological and genomics levels. The radiomics
features showed significant correlations with Grade Group and Decipher score,
which were not observed with standard PI-RADS assessment. Significant
correlations between mpMRI texture features and PCa Gleason scores have been
observed in earlier studies
7,8, while the association between
mpMRI radiomic features and Decipher (among other gene risk scores) has
previously been assessed in only a small cohort of 6 patients
9. Our study thus describes the first
results on the correlation between mpMRI and Decipher risk score in a larger
cohort of PCa patients. The model parameters from the general linear models
included a combination of T2WI and advanced DWI radiomics features, suggesting
that the combination of these techniques improves the diagnostic performance of
MRI radiomics for assessment of PCa aggressiveness. The accuracy values from
the general linear models may be slightly overestimated, because no separate
validation set was used in this preliminary study. In the future we will
validate our findings in a separate validation cohort and we will explore the use
of advanced machine learning algorithms to potentially further improve the
accuracy of mpMRI radiomics features for PCa aggressiveness.
Acknowledgements
This
research is supported by the 2017 Judy and Ronald Baron Prostate Cancer
Foundation Young Investigator Award.References
1. Fehr
D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A, et al. Automatic classification of prostate
cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
2015;112(46):E6265-6273.
2. Rosenkrantz
AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Utility of diffusional
kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate
cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am
J Roentgenol 2013;201(4):840-846.
3. Den
RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Genomic classifier identifies men with
adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant
radiation therapy. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the
American Society of Clinical Oncology 2015;33(8):944-951.
4. Weinreb
JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and
Data System: 2015, Version 2. European urology 2016;69(1):16-40.
5. Haralick
RM, Shanmuga K, Dinstein I. Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE
Trans SystMan Cybern SMC 1973;3:610-621.
6. Den
RB, Santiago-Jimenez M, Alter J, et al. Decipher correlation patterns post
prostatectomy: initial experience from 2 342 prospective patients. Prostate
cancer and prostatic diseases 2016;19(4):374-379.
7. Nketiah
G, Elschot M, Kim E, et al. T2-weighted MRI-derived textural features reflect
prostate cancer aggressiveness: preliminary results. European radiology
2017;27(7):3050-3059.
8. 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. European
radiology 2015;25(10):2840-2850.
9. Stoyanova
R, Pollack A, Takhar M, et al. Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative
imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate
biopsies. Oncotarget 2016;7(33):53362-53376.