Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Skeletal Radiology
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 11/2020

01-11-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Scientific Article

Pilot study to differentiate lipoma from atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma using MR radiomics-based texture analysis

Authors: Ian Pressney, Michael Khoo, Raymond Endozo, Balaji Ganeshan, Paul O’Donnell

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Aims

This pilot study aims to determine if tumour heterogeneity assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics-based texture analysis (TA) can differentiate between lipoma and atypical lipomatous tumour (ALT)/well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDL).

Materials and methods

Thirty consecutive ALT/WDLs and 30 lipomas were included in the study, cases diagnosed both histologically and with murine double minute 2 (MDM2) gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in excision specimens. Multiple patient, MRI and MRTA factors were assessed. Heterogeneity was evaluated using a filtration-histogram technique-based textural analysis on single axial proton density (PD) and coronal T1-W images of the most homogenously fatty component of the lesion.

Results

Thirty-three percent of the diagnoses of ALT/WDL vs lipoma were confirmed using FISH MDM2 analysis. ALT/WDLs were statistically different from lipomas in location (site in the body and depth from skin surface) and fat content, with p values of 0.021, 0.001, and 0.021 respectively. Nine of 36 (25%) texture parameters had significant differences between ALT/WDLs and lipomas on axial PD MRTA, with the most significant results at medium and coarse texture scales particularly mean intensity (p = 0.003) at SSF = 6, and kurtosis (p = 0.012) at SSF = 5. A cut-off value of < 304 for coarse-filtered texture on axial PD MRI identified ALT from lipoma with a sensitivity and specificity of 70% (AUC = 0.73, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Texture heterogeneity quantified at fine, medium, and coarse texture scales are significant differentiators of lipoma and ALT/WDL with the difference particularly marked in medium and coarse texture scales for two MR TA parameters: mean and kurtosis.
Literature
1.
Myhre-Jensen O. A consecutive 7-year series of 1331 benign soft tissue tumors. Clinicopathologic data. Comparison with sarcomas. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52:287–93.CrossRef
2.
Dei Tos AP. Liposarcoma: new entities and evolving concepts. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2000;4:252–66.CrossRef
3.
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation, International Academy of Pathology, Bridge JA, Hogendoorn PC, Fletcher C. WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone 2013. 4th ed. IARC; 2013.
4.
Coindre JM, Pedeutour F, Aurias A. Well differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas. Virchows Arch. 2010;456:167–79.CrossRef
5.
Shimada S, Ishizawa T, Ishizawa K, Matsumura T, Hasegawa T, Hirose T. The value of MDM2 and CDK4 amplification levels using real-time polymerase chain reaction for the differential diagnosis of liposarcomas and their histologic mimickers. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:1123–9.CrossRef
6.
Hostein I, Pelmus M, Aurias A, Pedeutour F, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Coindre JM. Evaluation of MDM2 and CDK4 amplification by real-time PCR on paraffin wax-embedded material: a potential tool for the diagnosis of atypical lipomatous tumours/well differentiated liposarcomas. J Pathol. 2004;202:95–102.CrossRef
7.
Sirvent N, Coindre JM, Maire G, Hostein I, Keslair F, Guillou L, et al. Detection of MDM2-CDK4 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization in 200 paraffin-embedded tumor samples: utility in diagnosing adipocytic lesions and comparison with immunohistochemistry and real-time PCR. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1476–89.CrossRef
8.
Binh MB, Sastre-Garau X, Guillou L, de Pinieux G, Terrier P, Lagace R, et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunostainings are useful adjuncts in diagnosing well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma subtypes: a comparative analysis of 559 soft tissue neoplasms with genetic data. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1340–7.CrossRef
9.
Kashima T, Halai D, Ye H, Hing SN, Delany D, Pollock R, et al. Sensitivity of MDM2 amplification and unexpected multiple faint alphoid 12 (alpha 12 satellite sequences) signals in atypical lipomatous tumour. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:1384–96.CrossRef
10.
Weaver J, Downs-Kelly E, Goldblum JR, Turner S, Kulkarni S, Tubbs RR, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for MDM2 gene amplification as a diagnostic tool in lipomatous neoplasms. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:943–9.CrossRef
11.
Dei Tos AP, Doglioni C, Piccinin S, Sciot R, Furlanetto A, Boiocchi M, et al. Coordinated expression and amplification of the MDM2, CDK4, and HMGI-C genes in atypical lipomatous tumours. J Pathol. 2000;190:531–6.CrossRef
12.
Ryan S, Visgauss J, Kerr D, Helmkamp J, Said N, Vinson E et al. The value of MRI in distinguishing subtypes of lipomatous extremity tumors needs reassessment in the era of MDM2 and CDK4 testing. Sarcoma 2018, article ID 1901896, 7 pages.
13.
Brisson M, Kashima T, Delaney D, Tirabosco R, Clarke A, Cro S, et al. MRI characteristics of lipoma and atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma: retrospective comparison with histology and MDM2 gene amplification. Skelet Radiol. 2013;42:635–47.CrossRef
14.
Thornhill RE, Golfam M, Sheikh A, Cron GO, White EA, Werier J, et al. Differentiation of lipoma from liposarcoma on MRI using texture and shape analysis. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:1185–94.CrossRef
15.
Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 2012;3:573–89.CrossRef
16.
Ganeshan B, Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:140–9.CrossRef
17.
Eliat PA, Olivie D, Saikali S, Carsin B, Saint-Jalmes H, de Certaines JD. Can dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging combined with texture analysis differentiate malignant glioneuronal tumors from other glioblastoma? Neurol Res Int. 2012;2012:195176.PubMed
18.
Parikh J, Selmi M, Charles-Edwards G, Glendenning J, Ganeshan B, Verma H, et al. Changes in primary breast cancer heterogeneity may augment midtreatment MR imaging assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology. 2014;272:100–12.CrossRef
19.
De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M, Rengo M, Meinel FG, Musio D, et al. Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Investig Radiol. 2015;50:239–45.CrossRef
20.
Mayerhoefer ME, Breitenseher MJ, Kramer J, et al. Texture analysis for tissue discrimination on T1-weighted MR images of the knee joint in a multicentre study: transferability of texture features and comparison of feature selection methods and classifiers. J Magn Reason Imaging. 2005;22:674–80.CrossRef
21.
Juntu J, Sijbers J, Van Dyck D, et al. Bias field correction for MRI images. Computer recognition systems. Advances in soft computing. 2005;30:543–51.CrossRef
22.
Lisson CS, Lisson CG, Flosdorf K, Mayer-Steinacker R, Schultheiss M, von Baer A, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI-based 3D texture analysis for tissue characterisation and discrimination of low-grade chondrosarcoma from enchondroma: a pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:468–77.CrossRef
23.
Miles KA, Ganeshan B, Hayball MP. CT texture analysis using the filtration-histogram method: what do the measurements mean? Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:400–6.CrossRef
24.
Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:140–9.CrossRef
25.
Weaver J, Rao J, Goldblum et al. Can MDM2 analytical tests performed on core needle biopsy be relied upon to diagnose well-differentiated liposarcoma? Mod Pathol 2010; 23:1301–1306.
26.
O’Donnell PW, Griffin AM, Edward WC et al. Can experienced observers differentiate between lipoma and well-differentiated liposarcoma using only MRI? Sarcoma 2013, article ID 982784, 6 pages.
27.
Gaskin GM, Helms CA. Lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas (atypical lipomas): results of MRI evaluations of 126 consecutive fatty masses. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:733–9.CrossRef
28.
Vos M, Starmans PA, Timbergen MJM, van der Voort SR, Padmos GA, Kessels W, et al. Radiomics approach to distinguish between well differentiated liposarcomas and lipomas on MRI. Br J Surg. 2019;106(13):1800–9.CrossRef
29.
Kransdorf MJ, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Murphey MD, Foster WC, Temple HT. Imaging of fatty tumors: distinction of lipoma and well-differentiated liposarcoma. Radiology. 2002;224:99–104.CrossRef
30.
Evans HL. Atypical lipomatous tumor, its variants, and its combined forms: a study of 61 cases, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1–14.CrossRef
31.
Murphey MD, Carroll JF, Flemming DJ, Pope TL, Gannon FH, Kransdorf MJ. From the archives of the AFIP: benign musculoskeletal lipomatous lesions. Radiographics. 2004;24:1433–66.CrossRef
32.
Donato M, Vanel D, Alberghini M, Mercuri M. Muscle fibers inside a fat tumor: a non-specific imaging finding of benignancy. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:27–9.CrossRef
33.
Knebel C, Neumann J, Schwaiger BJ, Karampinos DC, Pfeiffer D, Specht K, et al. Differentiating atypical lipomatous tumors from lipomas with magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with MDM2 gene amplification status. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):309.CrossRef
34.
Oghuri T, Aoki T, Hisaoka M, et al. Differential diagnosis of benign peripheral lipoma from well-differentiated liposarcoma on MR imaging: is comparison of margins and internal characteristics useful? Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1689–94.CrossRef
35.
Nardo L, Abdelhafez YG, Acquafredda F, Schiro S, Wong AL, Sarohia D et al. Qualitative evaluation of MRI features of lipoma and atypical lipomatous tumor: results from a multicenter study. Skeletal Radiol 2020 epub ahead of print.
Metadata
Title
Pilot study to differentiate lipoma from atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma using MR radiomics-based texture analysis
Authors
Ian Pressney
Michael Khoo
Raymond Endozo
Balaji Ganeshan
Paul O’Donnell
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03454-4

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

Skeletal Radiology 11/2020 Go to the issue

Scientific Article

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of spinal giant cell tumors

Scientific Article

Muscle activities during shoulder internal rotation differ in arm position: a preliminary quantitative analysis using positron emission tomography

Scientific Article

Diagnostic performance of open MRI in the flexed knee position for the detection of medial meniscus ramp lesions

Technical Report

Ultrasound-guided muscle biopsy: a practical alternative for investigation of myopathy

Scientific Article

Intervertebral disc degeneration associated with vertebral marrow fat, assessed using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging

Case Report

Solitary fibrous tumor of bone developing lung metastases on long-term follow-up