4.6 Article

The utility of MRI histogram and texture analysis for the prediction of histological diagnosis in head and neck malignancies

Journal

CANCER IMAGING
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

E-MED
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0193-9

Keywords

Histogram analysis; Texture analysis; Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; Histological grade; Malignant lymphoma; Differentiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundTo assess the utility of histogram and texture analysis of magnetic resonance (MR) fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging (Fs-T2WI) for the prediction of histological diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and malignant lymphoma (ML).MethodsThe cases of 57 patients with SCC (45 well/moderately and 12 poorly differentiated SCC) and 10 patients with ML were retrospectively analyzed. Quantitative parameters with histogram features (relative mean signal, coefficient of variation, kurtosis and skewness) and gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features (contrast, correlation, energy and homogeneity) were calculated using Fs-T2WI data with a manual tumor region of interest (ROI).ResultsThe following significantly different values were obtained for the total SCC versus ML groups: relative mean signal (3.650.86 vs. 2.61 +/- 0.49), contrast (72.9 +/- 16.2 vs. 49.3 +/- 8.7) and homogeneity (2.22 +/- 0.25x10(-1) vs. 2.53 +/- 0.12x10(-1)). In the comparison of the SCC histological grades, the relative mean signal and contrast were significantly lower in the poorly differentiated SCC (2.89 +/- 0.63, 56.2 +/- 12.9) compared to the well/moderately SCC (3.85 +/- 0.81, 77.5 +/- 13.9). The homogeneity in poorly differentiated SCC (2.56 +/- 0.15x10(-1)) was higher than that of the well/moderately SCC (2.1 +/- 0.18x10(-1)).Conclusions Parameters obtained by histogram and texture analysis of Fs-T2WI may be useful for noninvasive prediction of histological type and grade in head and neck malignancy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available