Shape matters: morphological metrics of glioblastoma imaging abnormalities as biomarkers of prognosis

Lee Curtin; Paula Whitmire; Haylye White; Kamila M. Bond; Maciej M. Mrugala; Leland S. Hu; Kristin R. Swanson

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02495-6

journal article Open Access Dec 01, 2021

Shape matters: morphological metrics of glioblastoma imaging abnormalities as biomarkers of prognosis

Lee Curtin Paula Whitmire

Haylye White Kamila M. Bond

Maciej M. Mrugala Leland S. Hu Kristin R. Swanson

Scientific Reports Vol. 11 No. 1 · Springer Science and Business Media LLC

View at Publisher Save 10.1038/s41598-021-02495-6

Abstract

AbstractLacunarity, a quantitative morphological measure of how shapes fill space, and fractal dimension, a morphological measure of the complexity of pixel arrangement, have shown relationships with outcome across a variety of cancers. However, the application of these metrics to glioblastoma (GBM), a very aggressive primary brain tumor, has not been fully explored. In this project, we computed lacunarity and fractal dimension values for GBM-induced abnormalities on clinically standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In our patient cohort (n = 402), we connect these morphological metrics calculated on pretreatment MRI with the survival of patients with GBM. We calculated lacunarity and fractal dimension on necrotic regions (n = 390), all abnormalities present on T1Gd MRI (n = 402), and abnormalities present on T2/FLAIR MRI (n = 257). We also explored the relationship between these metrics and age at diagnosis, as well as abnormality volume. We found statistically significant relationships to outcome for all three imaging regions that we tested, with the shape of T2/FLAIR abnormalities that are typically associated with edema showing the strongest relationship with overall survival. This link between morphological and survival metrics could be driven by underlying biological phenomena, tumor location or microenvironmental factors that should be further explored.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

36

[1]

Stupp, R., Mason, W. P. & Van den Bent, M. J. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. Oncol. Times. 27, 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.cot.0000289242.47980.f9 (2005). 10.1097/01.cot.0000289242.47980.f9

[2]

Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial

Roger Stupp, Monika E Hegi, Warren P Mason et al.

The Lancet Oncology 2009 10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70025-7

[3]

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma

Roger Stupp, Sophie Taillibert, Andrew Kanner et al.

JAMA 2017 10.1001/jama.2017.18718

[4]

Anderson, A. R. A., Weaver, A. M., Cummings, P. T. & Quaranta, V. Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell 127(5), 905–915 (2006). 10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.042

[5]

Chan, A. & Tuszynski, J. A. Automatic prediction of tumour malignancy in breast cancer with fractal dimension. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3(12), 160558 (2016). 10.1098/rsos.160558

[6]

Losa, G. A. & Castelli, C. Nuclear patterns of human breast cancer cells during apoptosis: Characterisation by fractal dimension and co-occurrence matrix statistics. Cell Tissue Res. 322(2), 257–267 (2005). 10.1007/s00441-005-0030-2

[7]

Liu, S. et al. Relationship between necrotic patterns in glioblastoma and patient survival: Fractal dimension and lacunarity analyses using magnetic resonance imaging. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 8302 (2017). 10.1038/s41598-017-08862-6

[8]

Chen, C. et al. Microvascular fractal dimension predicts prognosis and response to chemotherapy in glioblastoma: An automatic image analysis study. Lab. Invest. 98(7), 924–934 (2018). 10.1038/s41374-018-0055-2

[9]

Esgiar, A. N., Naguib, R. N. G., Sharif, B. S., Bennett, M. K. & Murray, A. Fractal analysis in the detection of colonic cancer images. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 6(1), 54–58 (2002). 10.1109/4233.992163

[10]

Pansera, F. Fractals and cancer. Med. Hypotheses. 42, 400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9877(94)90163-5 (1994). 10.1016/0306-9877(94)90163-5

[11]

Soares, F., Janela, F., Pereira, M., Seabra, J. & Freire, M. M. 3D lacunarity in multifractal analysis of breast tumor lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 22(11), 4422–4435 (2013). 10.1109/tip.2013.2273669

[12]

Park, Y. W. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging–based 3-dimensional fractal dimension and lacunarity analyses may predict the meningioma grade. Eur. Radiol. 30, 4615–4622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06788-8 (2020). 10.1007/s00330-020-06788-8

[13]

Yang, D. Standardized MRI assessment of high-grade glioma response: A review of the essential elements and pitfalls of the RANO criteria. Neurooncol. Pract. 3(1), 59–67 (2016).

[14]

Barajas, R. F. Jr. et al. Glioblastoma multiforme regional genetic and cellular expression patterns: Influence on anatomic and physiologic MR imaging. Radiology 254(2), 564–576 (2010). 10.1148/radiol.09090663

[15]

Gill, B. J. et al. MRI-localized biopsies reveal subtype-specific differences in molecular and cellular composition at the margins of glioblastoma. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 111(34), 12550–12555 (2014). 10.1073/pnas.1405839111

[16]

Bedin, V., Adam, R. L., de Sá, B. C., Landman, G. & Metze, K. Fractal dimension of chromatin is an independent prognostic factor for survival in melanoma. BMC Cancer 10, 260 (2010). 10.1186/1471-2407-10-260

[17]

Delides, A. et al. Fractal dimension as a prognostic factor for laryngeal carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 25(3B), 2141–2144 (2005).

[18]

Karslioğlu, Y., Günal, A., Kurt, B., Ongürü, O. & Ozcan, A. Fractal dimension of microvasculature in renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas. Pathol. Res. Pract. 205(10), 677–681 (2009). 10.1016/j.prp.2009.03.004

[19]

Mohammed, M. A. et al. Neural network and multi-fractal dimension features for breast cancer classification from ultrasound images. Comput. Elect. Eng. 70, 871–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2018.01.033 (2018). 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2018.01.033

[20]

Lennon, F. E. et al. Lung cancer: A fractal viewpoint. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12, 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.108 (2015). 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.108

[21]

Smitha, K. A., Gupta, A. K. & Jayasree, R. S. Fractal analysis: Fractal dimension and lacunarity from MR images for differentiating the grades of glioma. Phys. Med. Biol. 60(17), 6937–6947 (2015). 10.1088/0031-9155/60/17/6937

[22]

Ieva, A. D. et al. Three-dimensional susceptibility-weighted imaging at 7 T using fractal-based quantitative analysis to grade gliomas. Neuroradiology 55, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-012-1081-1 (2013). 10.1007/s00234-012-1081-1

[23]

Di Ieva, A., Le Reste, P.-J., Carsin-Nicol, B., Ferre, J.-C. & Cusimano, M. D. Diagnostic value of fractal analysis for the differentiation of brain tumors using 3-tesla magnetic resonance susceptibility-weighted imaging. Neurosurgery 79(6), 839–846 (2016). 10.1227/neu.0000000000001308

[24]

Curtin, L. et al. Assessment of prognostic value of cystic features in glioblastoma relative to sex and treatment with standard-of-care. Front. Oncol. 10, 580750 (2020). 10.3389/fonc.2020.580750

[25]

Karperien, A. L. & Jelinek, H. F. ImageJ in computational fractal-based neuroscience: Pattern extraction and translational research. Comput. Neurosci. 1, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3995-4_32 (2016). 10.1007/978-1-4939-3995-4_32

[26]

NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis

Caroline A Schneider, Wayne S Rasband, Kevin W Eliceiri

Nature Methods 2012 10.1038/nmeth.2089

[27]

Kassambara A., Kosinski M., Biecek P. & Fabian S. survminer: Drawing Survival Curves using “ggplot2”. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survminer/index.html. (2019).

[28]

R. Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. (2020).

[29]

Kassambara, A. ggplot2: Guide to Create Beautiful Graphics in R. Alboukadel KASSAMBARA (2015).

[30]

Therneau, T. M. A Package for Survival Analysis in S. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival (2015).

[31]

Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis Vol. 67 (Springer, 2016). 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4

[32]

Hothorn, T. & Hothorn, M. T. The maxstat Package 2007.

[33]

Maximally Selected Rank Statistics

Berthold Lausen, Martin Schumacher

Biometrics 1992 10.2307/2532740

[34]

Cole, J. H. et al. Predicting brain age with deep learning from raw imaging data results in a reliable and heritable biomarker. Neuroimage 163, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.059 (2017). 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.059

[35]

Awad, A.-W. et al. Impact of removed tumor volume and location on patient outcome in glioblastoma. J. Neurooncol. 135(1), 161–171 (2017). 10.1007/s11060-017-2562-1

[36]

Jungk, C. et al. Location-dependent patient outcome and recurrence patterns in IDH1-wildtype glioblastoma. Cancers https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010122 (2019). 10.3390/cancers11010122

Metrics

28

Citations

36

References

Details

Published: Dec 01, 2021
Vol/Issue: 11(1)
License: View

Authors

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and

M

Maciej M. Mrugala

17Mayo Clinic Cancer Center;

Funding

National Institutes of Health Award: U01CA220378

Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Award: ADHS16-162514

Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation

Cite This Article

Lee Curtin, Paula Whitmire, Haylye White, et al. (2021). Shape matters: morphological metrics of glioblastoma imaging abnormalities as biomarkers of prognosis. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02495-6

Shape matters: morphological metrics of glioblastoma imaging abnormalities as biomarkers of prognosis

You May Also Like