Whole-tumor Histogram Analysis of Multiple Non-Gaussian Diffusion Models at High B Values for Assessing Cervical Cancer

Overview

Journal Abdom Radiol (NY)

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
Radiology

Date 2024 Jul 12

PMID 38995401

Authors

Lu Yang

Huijun Hu

Xiaojun Yang

Zhuoheng Yan

Guangzi Shi

Lingjie Yang

Yu Wang

Riyu Han

Xu Yan

Mengzhu Wang

Xiaohua Ban

Xiaohui Duan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic potential of whole-tumor histogram analysis of multiple non-Gaussian diffusion models for differentiating cervical cancer (CC) aggressive status regarding of pathological types, differentiation degree, stage, and p16 expression.

Methods: Patients were enrolled in this prospective single-center study from March 2022 to July 2023. Diffusion-weighted images (DWI) were obtained including 15 b-values (0 ~ 4000 s/mm). Diffusion parameters derived from four non-Gaussian diffusion models including continuous-time random-walk (CTRW), diffusion-kurtosis imaging (DKI), fractional order calculus (FROC), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) were calculated, and their histogram features were analyzed. To select the most significant features and establish predictive models, univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Finally, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of our models by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: 89 women (mean age, 55 ± 11 years) with CC were enrolled in our study. The combined model, which incorporated the CTRW, DKI, FROC, and IVIM diffusion models, offered a significantly higher AUC than that from any individual models (0.836 vs. 0.664, 0.642, 0.651, 0.649, respectively; p < 0.05) in distinguishing cervical squamous cell cancer from cervical adenocarcinoma. To distinguish tumor differentiation degree, except the combined model showed a better predictive performance compared to the DKI model (AUC, 0.839 vs. 0.697, respectively; p < 0.05), no significant differences in AUCs were found among other individual models and combined model. To predict the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, only DKI and FROC model were established and there was no significant difference in predictive performance among different models. In terms of predicting p16 expression, the predictive ability of DKI model is significantly lower than that of FROC and combined model (AUC, 0.693 vs. 0.850, 0.859, respectively; p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Multiple non-Gaussian diffusion models with whole-tumor histogram analysis show great promise to assess the aggressive status of CC.

References

Siegel R, Miller K, Fuchs H, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022; 72(1):7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. View

Saleh M, Virarkar M, Javadi S, Elsherif S, de Castro Faria S, Bhosale P . Cervical Cancer: 2018 Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System and the Role of Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214(5):1182-1195. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.21819. View

Li J, Liu G, Luo J, Yan S, Ye P, Wang J . Cervical cancer prognosis and related risk factors for patients with cervical cancer: a long-term retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):13994. PMC: 9385852. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17733-8. View

Moukarzel L, Angarita A, VandenBussche C, Rositch A, Thompson C, Fader A . Preinvasive and Invasive Cervical Adenocarcinoma: Preceding Low-Risk or Negative Pap Result Increases Time to Diagnosis. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016; 21(2):91-96. PMC: 5593076. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000286. View

Xiao M, Yan B, Li Y, Lu J, Qiang J . Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in evaluating prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2019; 30(3):1405-1418. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06461-9. View

Hutchinson E, Avram A, Irfanoglu M, Koay C, Barnett A, Komlosh M . Analysis of the effects of noise, DWI sampling, and value of assumed parameters in diffusion MRI models. Magn Reson Med. 2017; 78(5):1767-1780. PMC: 6084345. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26575. View

Liu Y, Zhang Y, Cheng R, Liu S, Qu F, Yin X . Radiomics analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer: A preliminary study on histological grade evaluation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018; 49(1):280-290. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26192. View

Kuang F, Ren J, Zhong Q, Liyuan F, Huan Y, Chen Z . The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol. 2012; 23(4):1050-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2681-1. View

Otikovs M, Nissan N, Furman-Haran E, Anaby D, Allweis T, Agassi R . Diffusivity in breast malignancies analyzed for b > 1000 s/mm at 1 mm in-plane resolutions: Insight from Gaussian and non-Gaussian behaviors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 53(6):1913-1925. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27489. View

10.

Jensen J, Helpern J, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K . Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 53(6):1432-40. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.20508. View

11.

Zhang Q, Yu X, Ouyang H, Zhang J, Chen S, Xie L . Whole-tumor texture model based on diffusion kurtosis imaging for assessing cervical cancer: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(8):5576-5585. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07612-z. View

12.

Hou M, Song K, Ren J, Wang K, Guo J, Niu Y . Comparative analysis of the value of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in evaluating the histological grade of cervical squamous carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1):87. PMC: 8780242. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09205-z. View

13.

Becker A, Perucho J, Wurnig M, Boss A, Ghafoor S, Khong P . Assessment of Cervical Cancer with a Parameter-Free Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging Algorithm. Korean J Radiol. 2017; 18(3):510-518. PMC: 5390620. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.510. View

14.

Winfield J, Orton M, Collins D, Ind T, Attygalle A, Hazell S . Separation of type and grade in cervical tumours using non-mono-exponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol. 2016; 27(2):627-636. PMC: 5209433. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4417-0. View

15.

Li B, Sun H, Zhang S, Wang X, Guo Q . The utility of APT and IVIM in the diagnosis and differentiation of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: A pilot study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 63:105-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.08.020. View

16.

Zhang A, Hu Q, Song J, Dai Y, Wu D, Chen T . Value of non-Gaussian diffusion imaging with a fractional order calculus model combined with conventional MRI for differentiating histological types of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging. 2022; 93:181-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2022.08.014. View

17.

Karaman M, Sui Y, Wang H, Magin R, Li Y, Zhou X . Differentiating low- and high-grade pediatric brain tumors using a continuous-time random-walk diffusion model at high b-values. Magn Reson Med. 2015; 76(4):1149-57. PMC: 4852163. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26012. View

18.

Li C, Wen Y, Xie J, Chen Q, Dang Y, Zhang H . Preoperative prediction of VETC in hepatocellular carcinoma using non-Gaussian diffusion-weighted imaging at high b values: a pilot study. Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1167209. PMC: 10248416. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1167209. View

19.

Ren J, Yuan Y, Tao X . Histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for predicting occult lymph node metastasis in early-stage oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(4):2739-2747. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08310-0. View

20.

Zhao B, Cao K, Li X, Zhu H, Sun Y . Whole lesion histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients on MRI predicts disease-free survival in locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer after radical chemo-radiotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19(1):1115. PMC: 6858752. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6344-3. View