4.7 Article

Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 796-802

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2319-8

关键词

Lung cancer; Survival; Computed tomography; Positron emission tomography; Texture analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To establish the potential for tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as assessed by CT texture analysis (CTTA) to provide an independent marker of survival for patients with NSCLC. Tumour heterogeneity was assessed by CTTA of unenhanced images of primary pulmonary lesions from 54 patients undergoing F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT for staging of NSCLC. CTTA comprised image filtration to extract fine, medium and coarse features with quantification of the distribution of pixel values (uniformity) within the filtered images. Receiver operating characteristics identified thresholds for PET and CTTA parameters that were related to patient survival using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The median (range) survival was 29.5 (1-38) months. 24, 10, 14 and 6 patients had tumour stages I, II, III and IV respectively. PET stage and tumour heterogeneity assessed by CTTA were significant independent predictors of survival (PET stage: Odds ratio 3.85, 95% confidence limits 0.9-8.09, P = 0.002; CTTA: Odds ratio 56.4, 95% confidence limits 4.79-666, p = 0.001). SUV was not a significantly associated with survival. Assessment of tumour heterogeneity by CTTA of non-contrast enhanced images has the potential for to provide a novel, independent predictor of survival for patients with NSCLC. aEuro cent Computed tomography is a routine staging procedure in non-small cell lung cancer aEuro cent CT texture analysis (CTTA) can quantify heterogeneity within these lung tumours aEuro cent CTTA seems to offer a novel independent predictor of survival for NSCLC aEuro cent CTTA could contribute to disease risk-stratification for patients with NSCLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据