Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 122–130 | Cite as

MRI of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: texture analysis of T2-weighted images for predicting long-term outcome

  • Moon Hyung Choi
  • Young Joon LeeEmail author
  • Seung Bae Yoon
  • Joon-Il Choi
  • Seung Eun Jung
  • Sung Eun Rha
Article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the association between T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) texture-analysis parameters and the pathological aggressiveness or long-term outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients.

Methods

A total of 66 patients (mean age 65.3 ± 9.0 years) who underwent preoperative MRI followed by pancreatectomy for PDAC between 2013 and 2015 were included in this study. A radiologist performed a texture analysis twice on one axial image using commercial software. Differences in the tex parameters, according to pathological factors, were analyzed using a Student’s t test or an ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between tex parameters and recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS).

Results

The mean follow-up time was 18.5 months, and there were 58 recurrences and 39 deaths. The mean of the positive pixel (MPP)-related factors was significantly lower in poorly differentiated tumors than in well-differentiated tumors as well as in cases with perineural invasion. The univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed a significant association between the tex parameters and RFS or OS. However, only tumor size was statistically significant after the multivariate analysis. Only tumor size and entropy with medium texture were significantly associated with OS after the multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Tumor size was a significant predictive factor for RFS and OS in PDAC patients. Although entropy with medium texture analysis was significantly associated with OS, there were also limitations in the texture analysis; thus, further study is necessary.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Pancreatic neoplasms Adenocarcinoma Recurrence 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

261_2018_1681_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (356 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 356 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF (1996) Long-term survival after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clinicopathologic analysis of 5-year survivors. Ann Surg 223:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Version 1. 2018. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Hall WA, Mikell JL, Mittal P, et al. (2013) Tumor size on abdominal MRI versus pathologic specimen in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: implications for radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:102–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aoki K, Okada S, Moriyama N, et al. (1994) Accuracy of computed tomography in determining pancreatic cancer tumor size. Jpn J Clin Oncol 24:85–87Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Treadwell JR, Zafar HM, Mitchell MD, et al. (2016) Imaging tests for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 45:789–795.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000000524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah D, Fisher WE, Hodges SE, et al. (2008) Preoperative prediction of complete resection in pancreatic cancer. J Surg Res 147:216–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.02.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porembka MR, Hawkins WG, Linehan DC, et al. (2011) Radiologic and intraoperative detection of need for mesenteric vein resection in patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. HPB (Oxford) 13:633–642.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, et al. (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD009323.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009323.pub3 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van den Broeck A, Sergeant G, Ectors N, et al. (2009) Patterns of recurrence after curative resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:600–604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2008.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamamoto T, Yagi S, Kinoshita H, et al. (2015) Long-term survival after resection of pancreatic cancer: a single-center retrospective analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:262–268.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i1.262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Nara S, et al. (2010) Analysis of 5-year survivors after a macroscopic curative pancreatectomy for invasive ductal adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 34:1908–1915.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0570-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilici A (2014) Prognostic factors related with survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 20:10802–10812.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i31.10802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fukukura Y, Takumi K, Higashi M, et al. (2014) Contrast-enhanced CT and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: performance as a prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Radiol 83:612–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim JH, Park SH, Yu ES, et al. (2010) Visually isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at dynamic-enhanced CT: frequency, clinical and pathologic characteristics, and diagnosis at imaging examinations. Radiology 257:87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee S, Kim SH, Park HK, et al. (2018) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: rim enhancement at MR imaging predicts prognosis after curative resection. Radiology .  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172331 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cassinotto C, Chong J, Zogopoulos G, et al. (2017) Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role of CT quantitative imaging biomarkers for predicting pathology and patient outcomes. Eur J Radiol 90:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eilaghi A, Baig S, Zhang Y, et al. (2017) CT texture features are associated with overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma—a quantitative analysis. BMC Med Imaging 17:38.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-017-0209-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castellano G, Bonilha L, Li LM, et al. (2004) Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 59:1061–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lubner MG, Smith AD, Sandrasegaran K, et al. (2017) CT texture analysis: definitions, applications, biologic correlates, and challenges. Radiographics 37:1483–1503.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gnep K, Fargeas A, Gutierrez-Carvajal RE, et al. (2017) Haralick textural features on T2-weighted MRI are associated with biochemical recurrence following radiotherapy for peripheral zone prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:103–117.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niu XK, Chen ZF, Chen L, et al. (2017) Clinical application of biparametric MRI texture analysis for detection and evaluation of high-grade prostate cancer in zone-specific regions. AJR Am J Roentgenol .  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18494 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim JH, Ko ES, Lim Y, et al. (2017) Breast cancer heterogeneity: MR imaging texture analysis and survival outcomes. Radiology 282:665–675.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ueno Y, Forghani B, Forghani R, et al. (2017) Endometrial carcinoma: MR imaging-based texture model for preoperative risk stratification-A preliminary analysis. Radiology. 284:748–757.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jalil O, Afaq A, Ganeshan B, et al. (2017) Magnetic resonance based texture parameters as potential imaging biomarkers for predicting long-term survival in locally advanced rectal cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy. Colorectal Dis 19:349–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M, et al. (2015) Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 50:239–245.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kassner A, Thornhill RE (2010) Texture analysis: a review of neurologic MR imaging applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:809–816.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herlidou-Meme S, Constans JM, Carsin B, et al. (2003) MRI texture analysis on texture test objects, normal brain and intracranial tumors. Magn Reson Imaging 21:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hiraoka N, Ino Y, Sekine S, et al. (2010) Tumour necrosis is a postoperative prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer patients with a high interobserver reproducibility in histological evaluation. Br J Cancer 103:1057–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luttges J, Schemm S, Vogel I, et al. (2000) The grade of pancreatic ductal carcinoma is an independent prognostic factor and is superior to the immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. J Pathol 191:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chalkidou A, O’Doherty MJ, Marsden PK (2015) False discovery rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: a systematic review. PLoS One 10:e0124165.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koh DM, Collins DJ (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1622–1635.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineSeoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations