Characterization of limb lymphedema using the statistical analysis of ultrasound backscattering.
Lymphedema
Nakagami distribution
information entropy
ultrasound imaging
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
entrez:
21
1
2020
pubmed:
21
1
2020
medline:
21
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lymphedema is a disease in which tissue swelling is caused by interstitial fluid retention in subcutaneous tissue. It is caused by a compromised lymphatic system. Lymphoscintigraphy is the current and primary modality used to assess lymphatic system dysfunction. Ultrasound elastography is a complementary tool used for evaluating the tissue stiffness of the lymphedematous limb. Tissue stiffness implies the existence of changes in tissue microstructures. However, ultrasound features related to tissue microstructures are neglected in clinical assessments of lymphedematous limbs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the lymphedematous diagnostic values of ultrasound Nakagami and entropy imaging, which are, respectively, model- and nonmodel-based backscattered statistical analysis methods for scatterer characterization. A total of 60 patients were recruited, and lymphoscintigraphy was used to score the patient's clinical severity of each of their limb lymphedema (0: normal; 1: partial lymphatic obstruction; and 2: total lymphatic obstruction). We performed ultrasound examinations to acquire ultrasound backscattered signals for B-mode, Nakagami, and entropy imaging. The envelope amplitude, Nakagami, and entropy values, as a function of the patients' lymphatic obstruction grades, were expressed in terms of their median and interquartile range (IQR). The values were then used in both an independent For each increase in a patient's score from 0 to 2, the envelope amplitude values were 405.44 (IQR: 238.72-488.17), 411.52 (IQR: 298.53-644.25), and 476.37 (IQR: 348.86-648.16), respectively. The Nakagami parameters were 0.16 (IQR: 0.14-0.22), 0.26 (IQR: 0.23-0.34), and 0.24 (IQR: 0.16-0.36), respectively, and the entropy values were 4.55 (IQR: 4.41-4.66), 4.86 (IQR: 4.78-4.99), and 4.87 (IQR: 4.81-4.97), respectively. The P values between the normal control and lymphedema groups obtained from B-mode and Nakagami analysis were larger than 0.05; whereas that of entropy imaging was smaller than 0.05. The areas under the ROC curve for B-mode, Nakagami, and entropy imaging were 0.64 (sensitivity: 70%; specificity: 47.5%), 0.75 (sensitivity: 70%; specificity: 75%), and 0.94 (sensitivity: 95%; specificity: 87.5%), respectively. The current findings demonstrated the diagnostic values of ultrasound Nakagami and entropy imaging techniques. In particular, the use of non-model-based entropy imaging enables for improved performance when characterizing limb lymphedema.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lymphedema is a disease in which tissue swelling is caused by interstitial fluid retention in subcutaneous tissue. It is caused by a compromised lymphatic system. Lymphoscintigraphy is the current and primary modality used to assess lymphatic system dysfunction. Ultrasound elastography is a complementary tool used for evaluating the tissue stiffness of the lymphedematous limb. Tissue stiffness implies the existence of changes in tissue microstructures. However, ultrasound features related to tissue microstructures are neglected in clinical assessments of lymphedematous limbs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the lymphedematous diagnostic values of ultrasound Nakagami and entropy imaging, which are, respectively, model- and nonmodel-based backscattered statistical analysis methods for scatterer characterization.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 60 patients were recruited, and lymphoscintigraphy was used to score the patient's clinical severity of each of their limb lymphedema (0: normal; 1: partial lymphatic obstruction; and 2: total lymphatic obstruction). We performed ultrasound examinations to acquire ultrasound backscattered signals for B-mode, Nakagami, and entropy imaging. The envelope amplitude, Nakagami, and entropy values, as a function of the patients' lymphatic obstruction grades, were expressed in terms of their median and interquartile range (IQR). The values were then used in both an independent
RESULTS
RESULTS
For each increase in a patient's score from 0 to 2, the envelope amplitude values were 405.44 (IQR: 238.72-488.17), 411.52 (IQR: 298.53-644.25), and 476.37 (IQR: 348.86-648.16), respectively. The Nakagami parameters were 0.16 (IQR: 0.14-0.22), 0.26 (IQR: 0.23-0.34), and 0.24 (IQR: 0.16-0.36), respectively, and the entropy values were 4.55 (IQR: 4.41-4.66), 4.86 (IQR: 4.78-4.99), and 4.87 (IQR: 4.81-4.97), respectively. The P values between the normal control and lymphedema groups obtained from B-mode and Nakagami analysis were larger than 0.05; whereas that of entropy imaging was smaller than 0.05. The areas under the ROC curve for B-mode, Nakagami, and entropy imaging were 0.64 (sensitivity: 70%; specificity: 47.5%), 0.75 (sensitivity: 70%; specificity: 75%), and 0.94 (sensitivity: 95%; specificity: 87.5%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The current findings demonstrated the diagnostic values of ultrasound Nakagami and entropy imaging techniques. In particular, the use of non-model-based entropy imaging enables for improved performance when characterizing limb lymphedema.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31956528
doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.10.12
pii: qims-10-01-48
pmc: PMC6960425
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
48-56Informations de copyright
2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Radiology. 2018 Dec;289(3):759-765
pubmed: 30106341
Acta Physiol Scand. 1966 Mar;66(3):337-45
pubmed: 5331269
J Pathol. 1981 Mar;133(3):243-72
pubmed: 7463213
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 1;12(8):e0181789
pubmed: 28763461
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016 Jan;32(1):56-65
pubmed: 25893630
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Jan 17;18(1):
pubmed: 28106728
J Breast Health. 2017 Apr 01;13(2):83-87
pubmed: 31244534
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 20;7:41004
pubmed: 28106118
J Pathol. 1981 Mar;133(3):229-42
pubmed: 7463212
Ann Surg. 2018 Sep;268(3):513-525
pubmed: 30004927
Lymphat Res Biol. 2018 Feb;16(1):36-42
pubmed: 28759307
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Nov;68(11):1592-9
pubmed: 26239375
J Med Ultrason (2001). 2014 Jul;41(3):359-64
pubmed: 27277911
Breast J. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(4):357-61
pubmed: 22759095
Lymphat Res Biol. 2018 Apr;16(2):174-181
pubmed: 28956970
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Jul;44(7):1327-1340
pubmed: 29622501
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Mar;5(2):261-273
pubmed: 28214496
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 May;40(5):917-30
pubmed: 24462151
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jun;121(6):3542-57
pubmed: 17552706
Microvasc Res. 2014 Nov;96:55-63
pubmed: 24956510