Laura Filograna1,2,3,4, Jacopo Lenkowicz5, Francesco Cellini5, Nicola Dinapoli5, Stefania Manfrida5, Nicola Magarelli6, Antonio Leone6, Cesare Colosimo6, Vincenzo Valentini5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology - Gemelli-ART, Catholic University of Rome, School of Medicine, Foundation University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. laura.filograna@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Catholic University of Rome, School of Medicine, Foundation University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. laura.filograna@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiological Sciences, PhD Training Program in Oncological Sciences, Catholic University of Rome, School of Medicine, University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. laura.filograna@gmail.com. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Radiotherapy, PTV Foundation, "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy. laura.filograna@gmail.com. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology - Gemelli-ART, Catholic University of Rome, School of Medicine, Foundation University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Radiological Sciences, Catholic University of Rome, School of Medicine, Foundation University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recently, radiomic analysis has gained attention as a valuable instrument for the management of oncological patients. The aim of the study is to isolate which features of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic analysis have to be considered the most significant predictors of metastasis in oncological patients with spinal bone marrow metastatic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight oncological patients (3 lung cancer; 1 prostatic cancer; 1 esophageal cancer; 1 nasopharyngeal cancer; 1 hepatocarcinoma; 1 breast cancer) with pre-radiotherapy MR imaging for a total of 58 dorsal vertebral bodies, 29 metastatic and 29 non-metastatic were included. Each vertebral body was contoured in T1 and T2 weighted images at a radiotherapy delineation console. The obtained data were transferred to an automated data extraction system for morphological, statistical and textural analysis. Eighty-nine features for each lesion in both T1 and T2 images were computed as the median of by-slice values. A Wilcoxon test was applied to the 89 features and the most statistically significant of them underwent to a stepwise feature selection, to find the best performing predictors of metastasis in a logistic regression model. An internal cross-validation via bootstrap was conducted for estimating the model performance in terms of the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: Of the 89 textural features tested, 16 were found to differ with statistical significance in the metastatic vs non-metastatic group. The best performing model was constituted by two predictors for T1 and T2 images, namely one morphological feature (center of mass shift) (p value < 0.01) for both datasets and one histogram feature minimum grey level (p value < 0.01) for T1 images and one textural feature (grey-level co-occurrence matrix joint variance (p value < 0.01) for T2 images. The internal cross-validation showed an AUC of 0.8141 (95% CI 0.6854-0.9427) in T1 images and 0.9116 (95% CI 0.8294-0.9937) in T2 images. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that MRI-based radiomic analysis on oncological patients with bone marrow metastatic disease is able to differentiate between metastatic and non-metastatic vertebral bodies. The most significant predictors of metastasis were found to be based on T2 sequence and were one morphological and one textural feature.
OBJECTIVES: Recently, radiomic analysis has gained attention as a valuable instrument for the management of oncological patients. The aim of the study is to isolate which features of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic analysis have to be considered the most significant predictors of metastasis in oncological patients with spinal bone marrow metastatic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight oncological patients (3 lung cancer; 1 prostatic cancer; 1 esophageal cancer; 1 nasopharyngeal cancer; 1 hepatocarcinoma; 1 breast cancer) with pre-radiotherapy MR imaging for a total of 58 dorsal vertebral bodies, 29 metastatic and 29 non-metastatic were included. Each vertebral body was contoured in T1 and T2 weighted images at a radiotherapy delineation console. The obtained data were transferred to an automated data extraction system for morphological, statistical and textural analysis. Eighty-nine features for each lesion in both T1 and T2 images were computed as the median of by-slice values. A Wilcoxon test was applied to the 89 features and the most statistically significant of them underwent to a stepwise feature selection, to find the best performing predictors of metastasis in a logistic regression model. An internal cross-validation via bootstrap was conducted for estimating the model performance in terms of the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: Of the 89 textural features tested, 16 were found to differ with statistical significance in the metastatic vs non-metastatic group. The best performing model was constituted by two predictors for T1 and T2 images, namely one morphological feature (center of mass shift) (p value < 0.01) for both datasets and one histogram feature minimum grey level (p value < 0.01) for T1 images and one textural feature (grey-level co-occurrence matrix joint variance (p value < 0.01) for T2 images. The internal cross-validation showed an AUC of 0.8141 (95% CI 0.6854-0.9427) in T1 images and 0.9116 (95% CI 0.8294-0.9937) in T2 images. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that MRI-based radiomic analysis on oncological patients with bone marrow metastatic disease is able to differentiate between metastatic and non-metastatic vertebral bodies. The most significant predictors of metastasis were found to be based on T2 sequence and were one morphological and one textural feature.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance; Oncology; Quantitative imaging; Radiomics; Radiotherapy; Vertebral metastases
Authors: Flavia Cobianchi Bellisari; Luigi De Marino; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Federico Bruno; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Camilla De Cataldo; Ferruccio Sgalambro; Nadia Catallo; Luigi Zugaro; Ernesto Di Cesare; Alessandra Splendiani; Carlo Masciocchi; Andrea Giovagnoni; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Abhinav Suri; Brandon C Jones; Grace Ng; Nancy Anabaraonye; Patrick Beyrer; Albi Domi; Grace Choi; Sisi Tang; Ashley Terry; Thomas Leichner; Iman Fathali; Nikita Bastin; Helene Chesnais; Chamith S Rajapakse Journal: Bone Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.626
Authors: Yu He; Ian Pan; Bingting Bao; Kasey Halsey; Marcello Chang; Hui Liu; Shuping Peng; Ronnie A Sebro; Jing Guan; Thomas Yi; Andrew T Delworth; Feyisope Eweje; Lisa J States; Paul J Zhang; Zishu Zhang; Jing Wu; Xianjing Peng; Harrison X Bai Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2020-11-22 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Eliodoro Faiella; Domiziana Santucci; Alessandro Calabrese; Fabrizio Russo; Gianluca Vadalà; Bruno Beomonte Zobel; Paolo Soda; Giulio Iannello; Carlo de Felice; Vincenzo Denaro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: J Orcajo-Rincon; J Muñoz-Langa; J M Sepúlveda-Sánchez; G C Fernández-Pérez; M Martínez; E Noriega-Álvarez; S Sanz-Viedma; J C Vilanova; A Luna Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2022-02-13 Impact factor: 3.340