Relationship between Glioblastoma Heterogeneity and Survival Time: An MR Imaging Texture Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Ostrom QT,
   3. Gittleman H,
   4. Stetson L, et al

   . Epidemiology of gliomas. Cancer Treat Res 2015;163:1–14 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12048-5_1 pmid:25468222

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Van Meir EG,
   3. Hadjipanayis CG,
   4. Norden AD, et al

   . Exciting new advances in neuro-oncology: the avenue to a cure for malignant glioma. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:166–93 doi:10.3322/caac.20069 pmid:20445000

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Smoll NR,
   3. Schaller K,
   4. Gautschi OP

   . Long-term survival of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:670–75 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2012.05.040 pmid:23352352

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Sottoriva A,
   3. Spiteri I,
   4. Piccirillo SG, et al

   . Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:4009–14 doi:10.1073/pnas.1219747110 pmid:23412337

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Bedard PL,
   3. Hansen AR,
   4. Ratain MJ, et al

   . Tumour heterogeneity in the clinic. Nature 2013;501:355–64 doi:10.1038/nature12627 pmid:24048068

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Kumar V,
   3. Gu Y,
   4. Basu S, et al

   . Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1234–48 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 pmid:22898692

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Gillies RJ,
   3. Kinahan PE,
   4. Hricak H

   . Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016;278:563–77 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 pmid:26579733

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kim JH,
   3. Ko ES,
   4. Lim Y, et al

   . Breast cancer heterogeneity: MR imaging texture analysis and survival outcomes. Radiology 2017;282:665–75 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160261 pmid:27700229

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Yoon SH,
   3. Park CM,
   4. Park SJ, et al

   . Tumor heterogeneity in lung cancer: assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2016;280:940–48 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151367 pmid:27031994

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Ng F,
    3. Kozarski R,
    4. Ganeshan B, et al

    . Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? Eur J Radiol 2013;82:342–48 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.10.023 pmid:23194641

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Verhaak RG,
    3. Hoadley KA,
    4. Purdom E, et al

    ; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell 2010;17:98–110 doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.020 pmid:20129251

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Chaddad A,
    3. Tanougast C

    . Extracted magnetic resonance texture features discriminate between phenotypes and are associated with overall survival in glioblastoma multiforme patients. Med Biol Eng Comput 2016;54:1707–18 doi:10.1007/s11517-016-1461-5 pmid:26960324

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Cui Y,
    3. Tha KK,
    4. Terasaka S, et al

    . Prognostic imaging biomarkers in glioblastoma: development and independent validation on the basis of multiregion and quantitative analysis of MR images. Radiology 2016;278:546–53 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150358 pmid:26348233

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Itakura H,
    3. Achrol AS,
    4. Mitchell LA, et al

    . Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:303ra138 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa7582 pmid:26333934

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Molina D,
    3. Perez-Beteta J,
    4. Luque B, et al

    . Tumour heterogeneity in glioblastoma assessed by MRI texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Br J Radiol 2016 Jul 4. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:27319577
16. 16.↵
    2. Simões R,
    3. van Cappellen van Walsum AM,
    4. Slump CH

    . Classification and localization of early-stage Alzheimer's disease in magnetic resonance images using a patch-based classifier ensemble. Neuroradiology 2014;56:709–21 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1385-4 pmid:24948425

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Molina D,
    3. Pérez-Beteta J,
    4. Martínez-González A, et al

    . Influence of gray level and space discretization on brain tumor heterogeneity measures obtained from magnetic resonance images. Comput Biol Med 2016;78:49–57 doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.09.011 pmid:27658261

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Tixier F,
    3. Hatt M,
    4. Le Rest CC, et al

    . Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2012;53:693–700 doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.099127 pmid:22454484

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Tang X

    . Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans Image Process 1998;7:1602–09 doi:10.1109/83.725367 pmid:18276225

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Just N

    . Improving tumour heterogeneity MRI assessment with histograms. Br J Cancer 2014;111:2205–13 doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.512 pmid:25268373

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Haralick RM,
    3. Shanmugam K,
    4. Dinstein IH

    . Texture features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 1973;smc-3:610–21 doi:10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309314

    CrossRef
22. 22.↵
    2. Castellano G,
    3. Bonilha L,
    4. Li LM, et al

    . Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1061–69 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2004.07.008 pmid:15556588

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Galloway MM

    . Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 1975;4:172–79 doi:10.1016/S0146-664X(75)80008-6

    CrossRef
24. 24.↵
    2. Xu X,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Zhang X, et al

    . Preoperative prediction of muscular invasiveness of bladder cancer with radiomic features on conventional MRI and its high-order derivative maps. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017 Feb 20. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00261-017-1079-6 pmid:28217825

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Kang Y,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim YJ, et al

    . Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging: correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 2011;261:882–90 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110686 pmid:21969667

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Chang CC,
    3. Lin CJ

    . LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2011;2:1–27 doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199

    CrossRef
27. 27.↵
    2. Han F,
    3. Wang H,
    4. Zhang G, et al

    . Texture feature analysis for computer-aided diagnosis on pulmonary nodules. J Digit Imaging 2015;28:99–115 doi:10.1007/s10278-014-9718-8 pmid:25117512

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Song B,
    3. Zhang G,
    4. Lu H, et al

    . Volumetric texture features from higher-order images for diagnosis of colon lesions via CT colonography. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2014;9:1021–31 doi:10.1007/s11548-014-0991-2 pmid:24696313

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Rakotomamonjy A

    . Variable selection using SVM-based criteria. J Mach Learn Res 2003;3:1357–70

    CrossRef
30. 30.↵
    2. Zacharaki EI,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Chawla S, et al

    . Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:1609–18 doi:10.1002/mrm.22147 pmid:19859947

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Zou J,
    3. Ji Q,
    4. Nagy G

    . A comparative study of local matching approach for face recognition. IEEE Trans Image Process 2007;16:2617–28 doi:10.1109/TIP.2007.904421 pmid:17926941

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Xu X,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. Tian Q, et al

    . 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 2017;12:645–56 doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1522-8 pmid:28110476

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Inda MM,
    3. Bonavia R,
    4. Seoane J

    . Glioblastoma multiforme: a look inside its heterogeneous nature. Cancers (Basel) 2014;6:226–39 doi:10.3390/cancers6010226 pmid:24473088

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Yang Z,
    3. Tang LH,
    4. Klimstra DS

    . Effect of tumor heterogeneity on the assessment of Ki67 labeling index in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver: implications for prognostic stratification. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:853–60 doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31821a0696 pmid:21566513

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Lerski RA,
    3. Straughan K,
    4. Schad LR, et al

    . MR image texture analysis: an approach to tissue characterization. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11:873–87 doi:10.1016/0730-725X(93)90205-R pmid:8371643

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Fetit AE,
    3. Novak J,
    4. Peet AC, et al

    . Three-dimensional textural features of conventional MRI improve diagnostic classification of childhood brain tumours. NMR Biomed 2015;28:1174–84 doi:10.1002/nbm.3353 pmid:26256809

    CrossRefPubMed