Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNg, Francesca
dc.contributor.authorKozarski, Robert
dc.contributor.authorGaneshan, Balaji
dc.contributor.authorGoh, Vicky
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-17T08:15:46Z
dc.date.available2013-06-17T08:15:46Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationNg , F , Kozarski , R , Ganeshan , B & Goh , V 2013 , ' Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis : Can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? ' , European Journal of Radiology , vol. 82 , no. 2 , pp. 342-348 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.10.023
dc.identifier.issn0720-048X
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 1439842
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 55904a6c-770a-4a93-aab0-a7b104a735b7
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84871923501
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/10769
dc.description.abstractTo determine if there is a difference between contrast enhanced CT texture features from the largest cross-sectional area versus the whole tumor, and its effect on clinical outcome prediction. Methods: Entropy (E) and uniformity (U) were derived for different filter values (1.0–2.5: fine to coarse textures) for the largest primary tumor cross-sectional area and the whole tumor of the staging contrast enhanced CT in 55 patients with primary colorectal cancer. Parameters were compared using nonparametric Wilcoxon test. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to determine the relationship between CT texture and 5-year overall survival. Results: E was higher and U lower for the whole tumor indicating greater heterogeneity at all filter levels (1.0–2.5): median (range) for E and U for whole tumor versus largest cross-sectional area of 7.89 (7.43–8.31) versus 7.62 (6.94–8.08) and 0.005 (0.004–0.01) versus 0.006 (0.005–0.01) for filter 1.0; 7.88 (7.22–8.48) versus 7.54 (6.86–8.1) and 0.005 (0.003–0.01) versus 0.007 (0.004–0.01) for filter 1.5; 7.88 (7.17–8.54) versus 7.48 (5.84–8.25) and 0.005 (0.003–0.01) versus 0.007 (0.004–0.02) for filter 2.0; and 7.83 (7.03–8.57) versus 7.42 (5.19–8.26) and 0.005 (0.003–0.01) versus 0.006 (0.004–0.03) for filter 2.5 respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated better separation of E and U for whole tumor analysis for 5-year overall survival.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Radiology
dc.titleAssessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis : Can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis?en
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionHealth & Human Sciences Research Institute
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research
dc.contributor.institutionHealth Services and Medicine
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.relation.schoolSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dcterms.dateAccepted2013
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.10.023
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record