Predicting Gleason Score of Prostate Cancer Patients Using Radiomic Analysis

被引:69
|
作者
Chaddad, Ahmad [1 ,2 ]
Niazi, Tamim [1 ]
Probst, Stephan [3 ]
Bladou, Franck [4 ]
Anidjar, Maurice [4 ]
Bahoric, Boris [1 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Div Radiat Oncol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] ETS, Dept Automated Prod Engn, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] McGill Univ, Div Nucl Med, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[4] McGill Univ, Dept Urol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
来源
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY | 2018年 / 8卷
关键词
biomarkers; classification; gleason score; radiomics; prostate cancer; APPARENT DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION; MORTALITY; FEATURES; HETEROGENEITY; RADIOTHERAPY; RADIATION;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2018.00630
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Use of quantitative imaging features and encoding the intra-tumoral heterogeneity from multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of Gleason score is gaining attention as a non-invasive biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa). This study tested the hypothesis that radiomic features, extracted from mpMRI, could predict the Gleason score pattern of patients with PCa. Methods: This analysis included T2-weighted (T2-WI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC, computed from diffusion-weighted imaging) scans of 99 PCa patients from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). A total of 41 radiomic features were calculated from a local tumor sub-volume (i.e., regions of interest) that is determined by a centroid coordinate of PCa volume, grouped based on their Gleason score patterns. Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's rank correlation tests were used to identify features related to Gleason score groups. Randomforest (RF) classifier model was used to predict Gleason score groups and identify the most important signature among the 41 radiomic features. Results: Gleason score groups could be discriminated based on zone size percentage, large zone size emphasis and zone size non-uniformity values (p < 0.05). These features also showed a significant correlation between radiomic features and Gleason score groups with a correlation value of -0.35, 0.32, 0.42 for the large zone size emphasis, zone size non-uniformity and zone size percentage, respectively (corrected p < 0.05). RF classifier model achieved an average of the area under the curves of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 83.40, 72.71, and 77.35% to predict Gleason score groups (G1) = 6; 6 < (G2) < (3 + 4) and (G3) >= 4 + 3, respectively. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the radiomic features can be used as a non-invasive biomarker to predict the Gleason score of the PCa patients.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] USEFULNESS OF 1H-MRS IN PREDICTING GLEASON SCORE OF MULTIPLE SMALL LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER
    Inoue, Masahiro
    Kaminaga, Tatsuro
    Muto, Satoru
    Ogawa, Yutaro
    China, Toshiyuki
    Isotani, Shuji
    Hisasue, Shin-Ichi
    Yamaguchi, Raizo
    Ide, Hisamitsu
    Horie, Shigeo
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 : A191 - A192
  • [32] Comparison of quantitative parameters and radiomic features as inputs into machine learning models to predict the Gleason score of prostate cancer lesions
    Nai, Ying-Hwey
    Cheong, Dennis Lai Hong
    Roy, Sharmili
    Kok, Trina
    Stephenson, Mary C.
    Schaefferkoetter, Josh
    Totman, John J.
    Conti, Maurizio
    Eriksson, Lars
    Robins, Edward G.
    Wang, Ziting
    Chua, Wynne Yuru
    Ang, Bertrand Wei Leng
    Singha, Arvind Kumar
    Thamboo, Thomas Paulraj
    Chiong, Edmund
    Reilhac, Anthonin
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2023, 100 : 64 - 72
  • [33] EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE GLEASON SCORE IN PREDICTING PROSTATE CANCER RECURRENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Reese, Adam
    Woldemichael, Elen
    Cooperberg, Matthew
    Nelson, Joel
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (04): : E602 - E602
  • [34] The Ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to Predict Gleason Score in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Discriminate Patients Between Gleason Score 6 and Gleason Score Higher Than 6-A Study on 320 Patients After Radical Prostatectomy
    Dolejsova, Olga
    Kucera, Radek
    Fuchsova, Radka
    Topolcan, Ondrej
    Svobodova, Hana
    Hes, Ondrej
    Eret, Viktor
    Pecen, Ladislav
    Hora, Milan
    TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2018, 17 : 1 - 6
  • [35] Improved accuracy for predicting the gleason score of prostate cancer by increasing the number of transrectal biopsy cores
    Miyake, Hideaki
    Kurahashi, Toshifumi
    Takenaka, Atsushi
    Hara, Isao
    Fujisawa, Masato
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2007, 79 (04) : 302 - 306
  • [36] Gleason score inflation in patients treated for clinically localized prostate cancer at Rigshospitalet
    Roder, M. A.
    Brasso, K.
    Iversen, P.
    APMIS, 2012, 120 : 8 - 8
  • [37] Long term prognostic significance of primary gleason pattern in patients with gleason score 7 prostate cancer: Impact on prostate cancer specific survival
    Tollefson, MK
    Slezak, JM
    Blute, ML
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 173 (04): : 436 - 437
  • [38] Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer
    Isbarn, Hendrik
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Ahyai, Sascha A.
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Jeldres, Claudio
    Haese, Alexander
    Heinzer, Hans
    Zacharias, Mario
    Heuer, Roman
    Eichelberg, Christian
    Steuber, Thomas
    Budaeus, Lars
    Koellermann, Jens
    Salomon, Georg
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    Perrotte, Paul
    Fisch, Margit
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 105 (06) : 818 - 823
  • [40] Using the Gleason score as a prostate cancer prognostic factor: Leave seven alone
    Qian, J
    Burke, HB
    Hoang, A
    Ma, J
    Bostwick, DG
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2002, 82 (01) : 177A - 177A