Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30127
Automatic Staging and Subtype Determination for Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma Using PET Image Texture Analysis

Authors: Seyhan Karaçavuş, Bülent Yılmaz, Ömer Kayaaltı, Semra İçer, Arzu Taşdemir, Oğuzhan Ayyıldız, Kübra Eset, Eser Kaya

Abstract:

In this study, our goal was to perform tumor staging and subtype determination automatically using different texture analysis approaches for a very common cancer type, i.e., non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Especially, we introduced a texture analysis approach, called Law’s texture filter, to be used in this context for the first time. The 18F-FDG PET images of 42 patients with NSCLC were evaluated. The number of patients for each tumor stage, i.e., I-II, III or IV, was 14. The patients had ~45% adenocarcinoma (ADC) and ~55% squamous cell carcinoma (SqCCs). MATLAB technical computing language was employed in the extraction of 51 features by using first order statistics (FOS), gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), gray-level run-length matrix (GLRLM), and Laws’ texture filters. The feature selection method employed was the sequential forward selection (SFS). Selected textural features were used in the automatic classification by k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) and support vector machines (SVM). In the automatic classification of tumor stage, the accuracy was approximately 59.5% with k-NN classifier (k=3) and 69% with SVM (with one versus one paradigm), using 5 features. In the automatic classification of tumor subtype, the accuracy was around 92.7% with SVM one vs. one. Texture analysis of FDG-PET images might be used, in addition to metabolic parameters as an objective tool to assess tumor histopathological characteristics and in automatic classification of tumor stage and subtype.

Keywords: Cancer stage, cancer cell type, non-small cell lung carcinoma, PET, texture analysis.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1129860

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 417

References:


[1] K. Abe, S. Baba, K. Kaneko, Isoda T, Yabuuchi H, Sasaki M, et al. “Diagnostic and prognostic values of FDG-PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer,” Clin Imag.,vol. 33, pp. 90-95, 2009.
[2] Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, Hossein-Foucher C, Buvat I, Castaigne C, et al. “Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA),” by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol., vol. 3, pp. 6-12, 2008.
[3] A. Pugachev, S. Ruan, S. Carlin, S.M. Larson, J. Campa, C.C. Ling, et al. “Dependence of FDG uptake on tumor microenvironment,” Int J Radiat Oncol., vol. 62, pp. 545-553, 2005.
[4] J.B. MacQueen, “Some Methods for classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations,” Proceedings of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. University of California Press. pp. 281–297. MR 0214227. Zbl 0214.46201, 1967.
[5] S. Selvarajah and S. Kodituwakku, “Analysis and comparison of texture features for content based image retrieval,” Int J Latest Trends Computing, vol. 2(1), pp. 108-113, 2011.
[6] R.M. Haralic, K. Shanmugan, I.H. Dinstein, “Textural features for image classification,” IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst., vol. SMC-3(6), pp. 610-621, 1973.
[7] M.M. Galloway, “Texture analysis using gray level run lengths,” Comp Vision Graph., vol. 4, pp. 172-179, 1975.
[8] K.I. Laws, “Textured image segmentation” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1980.
[9] N.S. Altman, “An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression,” The American Statistician, vol. 46 (3), pp. 175–185, 1992.
[10] C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, “Support-vector networks,” Mach Learn., vol. 20 , pp. 273-297, 1995.
[11] A.W. Whitney, “A direct method of nonparametric measurement selection,” IEEE Trans Comput. vol. 100, pp. 1100-1103, 1971.
[12] W. Vach, P.F. Høilund-Carlsen, O. Gerke and W.A. Weber, “Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT in diagnosing cancer patients,” J Nucl Med., vol. 52, pp. 77-85, 2011.
[13] G. Castellano, L. Bonilha, L. Li and F. Cendes, “Texture analysis of medical images,” Clin Radiol., vol. 59, pp. 1061-1069, 2004.
[14] K. Holli, A-L. Lääperi, L. Harrison, T. Luukkaala, T. Toivonen, P. Ryymin, et al., “Characterization of breast cancer types by texture analysis of magnetic resonance images,” Acad Radiol. vol. 17, pp. 135-141, 2010.
[15] F. Davnall, C.S. Yip, G. Ljungqvist, M. Selmi, F. Ng, B. Sanghera, et al., “Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice?” Insights Imaging,vol. 3, pp. 573-589, 2012.
[16] A. Ba-Ssalamah, D. Muin, R. Schernthaner, C. Kulinna-Cosentini, N. Bastati, J. Stift, et al., “Texture-based classification of different gastric tumors at contrast-enhanced CT,” Eur J Radiol., vol. 82, pp. 537-543, 2013.
[17] G.J. Cook, C. Yip, M. Siddique, V. Goh, S. Chicklore, A. Roy, et al., “Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy?” J Nucl Med., vol. 54, pp. 19-26, 2013.
[18] F. Orlhac, M. Soussan, J-A. Maisonobe, C.A. Garcia, B. Vanderlinden, I. Buvat, “Tumor texture analysis in 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis,” J Nucl Med., vol. 55, pp. 414-422, 2014.
[19] S. Ha, H. Choi, G.J. Cheon, K.W. Kang, J-K. Chung, E.E. Kim, et al., “Autoclustering of non-small cell lung carcinoma subtypes on 18F-FDG PET using texture analysis: a preliminary result.” Nucl Med Mol Imaging., vol. 48, pp. 278-286, 2014.