Mei Yuan1, Yu-Dong Zhang1, Xue-Hui Pu1, Yan Zhong1, Hai Li2, Jiang-Fen Wu3, Tong-Fu Yu4. 1. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300, Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, 210009. 2. Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China, 210009. 3. GE Healthcare, Shanghai, China, 210000. 4. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300, Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, 210009. njmu_ytf@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare a multi-feature-based radiomic biomarker with volumetric analysis in discriminating lung adenocarcinomas with different disease-specific survival on computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: This retrospective study obtained institutional review board approval and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant. Pathologically confirmed lung adenocarcinoma (n = 431) manifested as subsolid nodules on CT were identified. Volume and percentage solid volume were measured by using a computer-assisted segmentation method. Radiomic features quantifying intensity, texture and wavelet were extracted from the segmented volume of interest (VOI). Twenty best features were chosen by using the Relief method and subsequently fed to a support vector machine (SVM) for discriminating adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) from invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC). Performance of the radiomic signatures was compared with volumetric analysis via receiver-operating curve (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The accuracy of proposed radiomic signatures for predicting AIS/MIA from IAC achieved 80.5% with ROC analysis (Az value, 0.829; sensitivity, 72.1%; specificity, 80.9%), which showed significantly higher accuracy than volumetric analysis (69.5%, P = 0.049). Regression analysis showed that radiomic signatures had superior prognostic performance to volumetric analysis, with AIC values of 81.2% versus 70.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The radiomic tumour-phenotypes biomarker exhibited better diagnostic accuracy than traditional volumetric analysis in discriminating lung adenocarcinoma with different disease-specific survival. KEY POINTS: • Radiomic biomarker on CT was designed to identify phenotypes of lung adenocarcinoma • Built up radiomic signature for lung adenocarcinoma manifested as subsolid nodules • Retrospective study showed radiomic signature had greater diagnostic accuracy than volumetric analysis • Radiomics help to evaluate intratumour heterogeneity within lung adenocarcinoma • Medical decision can be given with more confidence.
OBJECTIVES: To compare a multi-feature-based radiomic biomarker with volumetric analysis in discriminating lung adenocarcinomas with different disease-specific survival on computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: This retrospective study obtained institutional review board approval and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant. Pathologically confirmed lung adenocarcinoma (n = 431) manifested as subsolid nodules on CT were identified. Volume and percentage solid volume were measured by using a computer-assisted segmentation method. Radiomic features quantifying intensity, texture and wavelet were extracted from the segmented volume of interest (VOI). Twenty best features were chosen by using the Relief method and subsequently fed to a support vector machine (SVM) for discriminating adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) from invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC). Performance of the radiomic signatures was compared with volumetric analysis via receiver-operating curve (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The accuracy of proposed radiomic signatures for predicting AIS/MIA from IAC achieved 80.5% with ROC analysis (Az value, 0.829; sensitivity, 72.1%; specificity, 80.9%), which showed significantly higher accuracy than volumetric analysis (69.5%, P = 0.049). Regression analysis showed that radiomic signatures had superior prognostic performance to volumetric analysis, with AIC values of 81.2% versus 70.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The radiomic tumour-phenotypes biomarker exhibited better diagnostic accuracy than traditional volumetric analysis in discriminating lung adenocarcinoma with different disease-specific survival. KEY POINTS: • Radiomic biomarker on CT was designed to identify phenotypes of lung adenocarcinoma • Built up radiomic signature for lung adenocarcinoma manifested as subsolid nodules • Retrospective study showed radiomic signature had greater diagnostic accuracy than volumetric analysis • Radiomics help to evaluate intratumour heterogeneity within lung adenocarcinoma • Medical decision can be given with more confidence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma of lung; Biomarker; Computed tomography; Radiomics; Volumetric
Authors: Yusuhn Kang; Joon Woo Lee; Young Hwan Koh; Saebeom Hur; Su Jin Kim; Jee Won Chai; Heung Sik Kang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K Takamochi; K Nagai; J Yoshida; K Suzuki; Y Ohde; M Nishimura; S Sasaki; Y Nishiwaki Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Satrajit Basu; Anders Berglund; Steven A Eschrich; Matthew B Schabath; Kenneth Forster; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; David Fenstermacher; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Philippe Lambin; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jia Wu; Todd Aguilera; David Shultz; Madhu Gudur; Daniel L Rubin; Billy W Loo; Maximilian Diehn; Ruijiang Li Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Donghyun Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Jung Youn Kim; Se Jin Cho; Jae Ho Shin; Jeong Hoon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315