Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 2501–2510 | Cite as

A review of the principles of texture analysis and its role in imaging of genitourinary neoplasms

  • Richard ThomasEmail author
  • Lei Qin
  • Francesco Alessandrino
  • Sonia P. Sahu
  • Pamela J. Guerra
  • Katherine M. Krajewski
  • Atul Shinagare
Special section: Radiogenomics

Abstract

Advances in the management of genitourinary neoplasms have resulted in a trend towards providing patients with personalized care. Texture analysis of medical images, is one of the tools that is being explored to provide information such as detection and characterization of tumors, determining their aggressiveness including grade and metastatic potential and for prediction of survival rates and risk of recurrence. In this article we review the basic principles of texture analysis and then detail its current role in imaging of individual neoplasms of the genitourinary system.

Keywords

Texture analysis Genitourinary Neoplasm Cancer 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This review article did not receive any funding.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Shinagare has the following financial disclosures: 1. Consultant, Arog Pharmaceuticals, 2. Research funding, GTx Inc.Thomas, Qin, Alessandrino, Sahu, Guerra and Krajewski do not have any disclosures.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

There was no need for informed consent as this is a review article.

IRB approval

No IRB approval was necessary for this review article.

References

  1. 1.
    AJCC Cancer Staging Manual| Mahul B. Amin | Springer. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319406176 Accessed 10 Sep 2017
  2. 2.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 68(1):7–30Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stühler V, Kruck S, Hegemann M, et al. (2017) TKI 2.0—Wandel in der medikamentösen. Therapie des Nierenzellkarzinoms Urol. 6:1–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aragon-Ching JB (2014) The Evolution of Prostate Cancer Therapy: Targeting the Androgen Receptor. Front Oncol 4:295Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martyn-Hemphill C, Mak D, Khan MS, Challacombe BJ, Bishop CV (2013) Recent advances in diagnosis and treatment of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Int J Surg. 11(9):749–752Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einhorn LH (2002) Curing metastatic testicular cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 99(7):4592–4595Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazurowski MA (2015) Radiogenomics: What It Is and Why It Is Important. J Am Coll Radiol. 12(8):862–866Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giardino A, Gupta S, Olson E, et al. (2017) Role of Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine. Acad Radiol. 24(5):639–649Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hellbach K, Sterzik A, Sommer W, et al. (2017) Dual energy CT allows for improved characterization of response to antiangiogenic treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Eur Radiol. 27(6):2532–2537Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, et al. (2011) Assessment of Aggressiveness of Prostate Cancer: Correlation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient With Histologic Grade After Radical Prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol. 196(2):374–381Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ledley RS, Huang HK, Rotolo LS (1975) A texture analysis method in classification of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Comput Biol Med. 5(1):53–67Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kotter E, Langer M (2011) Computer aided detection and diagnosis in radiology. Eur Radiol. 21(3):590–592Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castellano G, Bonilha L, Li LM, Cendes F (2004) Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol. 59(12):1061–1069Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen CH, Pau LF, Wang PSP (1993) Handbk of Pattern Recognition. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, p 996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lubner MG, Smith AD, Sandrasegaran K, Sahani DV, Pickhardt PJ (2017) CT Texture Analysis: Definitions, Applications, Biologic Correlates, and Challenges. RadioGraphics. 37(5):1483–1503Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3(6):610–621Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mayerhoefer ME, Szomolanyi P, Jirak D, Materka A, Trattnig S (2009) Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: An application-oriented study. Med Phys. 36(4):1236–1243Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bashir U, Siddique MM, Mclean E, Goh V, Cook GJ (2016) Imaging Heterogeneity in Lung Cancer: Techniques, Applications, and Challenges. Am J Roentgenol. 207(3):534–543Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kassner A, Thornhill RE (2010) Texture Analysis: A Review of Neurologic MR Imaging Applications. Am J Neuroradiol. 31(5):809–816Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim JY, Kim JK, Kim N, Cho K-S (2008) CT Histogram Analysis: Differentiation of Angiomyolipoma without Visible Fat from Renal Cell Carcinoma at CT Imaging. Radiology. 246(2):472–479Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim JK, Kim SH, Jang YJ, et al. (2006) Renal Angiomyolipoma with Minimal Fat: Differentiation from Other Neoplasms at Double-Echo Chemical Shift FLASH MR Imaging. Radiology. 239(1):174–180Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hodgdon T, McInnes MDF, Schieda N, et al. (2015) Can Quantitative CT Texture Analysis be Used to Differentiate Fat-poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma on Unenhanced CT Images? Radiology. 276(3):787–796Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee HS, Hong H, Jung DC, Park S, Kim J (2017) Differentiation of fat-poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma in contrast-enhanced MDCT images using quantitative feature classification. Med Phys. 44(7):3604–3614Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lubner MG, Stabo N, Abel EJ, Del Rio AM, Pickhardt PJ (2016) CT Textural Analysis of Large Primary Renal Cell Carcinomas: Pretreatment Tumor Heterogeneity Correlates With Histologic Findings and Clinical Outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 207(1):96–105Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haider MA, Vosough A, Khalvati F, et al. (2017) CT texture analysis: a potential tool for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Cancer Imaging. 17:4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schieda N, Thornhill RE, Al-Subhi M, et al. (2015) Diagnosis of Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma With CT: Evaluation by Qualitative Imaging Features and Texture Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(5):1013–1023Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kierans AS, Rusinek H, Lee A, et al. (2014) Textural differences in apparent diffusion coefficient between low- and high-stage clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(6):W637–W644Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pignot G, Elie C, Conquy S, et al. (2007) Survival Analysis of 130 Patients with Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: Prognostic Utility of Type 1 and Type 2 Subclassification. Urology. 69(2):230–235Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Doshi AM, Ream JM, Kierans AS, et al. (2016) Use of MRI in Differentiation of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtypes: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 206(3):566–572Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antunes J, Viswanath S, Rusu M, et al. (2016) Radiomics Analysis on FLT-PET/MRI for Characterization of Early Treatment Response in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Proof-of-Concept Study. Transl Oncol. 9(2):155–162Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goh V, Ganeshan B, Nathan P, et al. (2011) Assessment of Response to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: CT Texture as a Predictive Biomarker. Radiology. 261(1):165–171Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Han SM, Lee HJ, Choi JY (2008) Computer-aided Prostate Cancer Detection using Texture Features and Clinical Features in Ultrasound Image. J Digit Imaging. 21(Suppl 1):121–133Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mohamed SS, Li J, Salama MMA, Freeman G (2009) Prostate Tissue Texture Feature Extraction for Suspicious Regions Identification on TRUS Images. J Digit Imaging. 22(5):503–518Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwak JT, Xu S, Wood BJ, et al. (2015) Automated prostate cancer detection using T2-weighted and high-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys. 42(5):2368–2378Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khalvati F, Wong A, Haider MA (2015) Automated prostate cancer detection via comprehensive multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging texture feature models. BMC Med Imaging. 15:27Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lv D, Guo X, Wang X, Zhang J, Fang J (2009) Computerized characterization of prostate cancer by fractal analysis in MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 30(1):161–168Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sidhu HS, Benigno S, Ganeshan B, et al. (2017) Textural analysis of multiparametric MRI detects transition zone prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 27(6):2348–2358Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gordetsky J, Epstein J (2016) Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol. 11:25Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nketiah G, Elschot M, Kim E, et al. (2017) T2-weighted MRI-derived textural features reflect prostate cancer aggressiveness: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 27(7):3050–3059Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V, et al. (2015) Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys Med Biol. 60(7):2685Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rozenberg R, Thornhill RE, Flood TA, et al. (2016) Whole-Tumor Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram and Texture Analysis to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Intermediate-Risk 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 206(4):775–782Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gnep K, Fargeas A, Gutiérrez-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(1):103–117Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reischauer C, Patzwahl R, Koh D-M, Froehlich JM, Gutzeit A (2018) Texture analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps for treatment response assessment in prostate cancer bone metastases—A pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 1(101):184–190Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tekes A, Kamel I, Imam K, et al. (2005) Dynamic MRI of Bladder Cancer: Evaluation of Staging Accuracy. Am J Roentgenol. 184(1):121–127Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xu X, Zhang X, Tian Q, et al. (2017) Three-dimensional texture features from intensity and high-order derivative maps for the discrimination between bladder tumors and wall tissues via MRI. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 12(4):645–656Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garapati SS, Hadjiiski L, Cha KH, et al. (2017) Urinary bladder cancer staging in CT urography using machine learning. Med Phys. 44(11):5814–5823Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Woldu SL, Bagrodia A, Lotan Y (2017) Guideline of guidelines: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int. 119(3):371–380Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang X, Xu X, Tian Q, et al. (2017) Radiomics assessment of bladder cancer grade using texture features from diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 46(5):1281–1288Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang G-M-Y, Sun H, Shi B, Jin Z-Y, Xue H-D (2017) Quantitative CT texture analysis for evaluating histologic grade of urothelial carcinoma. Abdom Radiol. 1, 42(2):561–568Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shi Z, Yang Z, Zhang G, et al. (2013) Characterization of Texture Features of Bladder Carcinoma and the Bladder Wall on MRI. Acad Radiol. 20(8):930–938Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu S, Zheng J, Li Y, et al. (2017) A Radiomics Nomogram for the Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Bladder Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 23(22):6904–6911Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cha KH, Hadjiiski L, Chan H-P, et al. (2017) Bladder Cancer Treatment Response Assessment in CT using Radiomics with Deep-Learning. Sci Rep. 7:8738Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lenert JT, Barnett CC, Kudelka AP, et al. (2001) Evaluation and surgical resection of adrenal masses in patients with a history of extra-adrenal malignancy. Surgery. 130(6):1060–1067Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schieda N, Krishna S, McInnes MDF, et al. (2017) Utility of MRI to Differentiate Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Adrenal Metastases From Adrenal Adenomas. Am J Roentgenol. 209(3):W152–W159Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chong S, Lee KS, Kim HY, et al. (2006) Integrated PET-CT for the Characterization of Adrenal Gland Lesions in Cancer Patients: Diagnostic Efficacy and Interpretation Pitfalls. RadioGraphics. 26(6):1811–1824Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nakajo M, Jinguji M, Nakajo M, et al. (2017) Texture analysis of FDG PET/CT for differentiating between FDG-avid benign and metastatic adrenal tumors: efficacy of combining SUV and texture parameters. Abdom Radiol. 13:1–8Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    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(5):e0124165Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mackin D, Fave X, Zhang L, et al. (2015) Measuring CT scanner variability of radiomics features. Invest Radiol. 50(11):757–765Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lu L, Ehmke RC, Schwartz LH, Zhao B (2016) Assessing Agreement between Radiomic Features Computed for Multiple CT Imaging Settings. PLoS ONE. 11(12):e0166550Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shafiq-ul-Hassan M, Zhang GG, Latifi K, et al. (2017) Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels. Med Phys. 44(3):1050–1062Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Solomon J, Mileto A, Nelson RC, Roy Choudhury K, Samei E (2015) Quantitative Features of Liver Lesions, Lung Nodules, and Renal Stones at Multi-Detector Row CT Examinations: Dependency on Radiation Dose and Reconstruction Algorithm. Radiology. 279(1):185–194Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Brynolfsson P, Nilsson D, Torheim T, et al. (2017) Haralick texture features from apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) MRI images depend on imaging and pre-processing parameters. Sci Rep. 7:4041Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fave X, Mackin D, Yang J, et al. (2015) Can radiomics features be reproducibly measured from CBCT images for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? Med Phys. 42(12):6784–6797Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Summers RM (2017) Texture analysis in radiology: Does the emperor have no clothes? Abdom Radiol. 42(2):342–345Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Recht M, Bryan RN (2017) Artificial Intelligence: Threat or Boon to Radiologists? J Am Coll Radiol. 14:1476–1480Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chockley K, Emanuel E (2016) The End of Radiology? Three Threats to the Future Practice of Radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 13:1415–1420Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang G, Kalra M, Orton CG (2017) Machine learning will transform radiology significantly within the next 5 years. Med Phys. 44(6):2041–2044Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJWL (2015) Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers. Sci Rep. 5:13087Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ImagingDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations