| Literature DB >> 30419849 |
Zhao Yao1, Yi Dong2, Guoqing Wu1, Qi Zhang2, Daohui Yang2, Jin-Hua Yu3, Wen-Ping Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to establish a radiomics analysis system for the diagnosis and clinical behaviour prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on multi-parametric ultrasound imaging.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Radiomics approach; Shear wave dispersion; Ultrasound; Viscoelasticity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30419849 PMCID: PMC6233500 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-5003-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Beseline characters of patients
| Parameters | All patients | Male (N; %) | Ages (mean ± variance) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor category | |||
| benign | 46 | 21; 46% | 50.5 ± 13.4 |
| malignant | 65 | 54; 83% | 56.6 ± 8.3 |
| P value |
| 0.00004 | 0.0040 |
| Malignant subtyping | |||
| HCC | 47 | 41; 87% | 55.3 ± 8.4 |
| others | 18 | 13; 72% | 60.2 ± 7.0 |
| P value |
| 0.1550 | 0.0267 |
| PD-1 prediction | |||
| PD-1 present | 15 | 14; 93% | 53.0 ± 8.8 |
| PD-1 absent | 24 | 20; 83% | 56.2 ± 8.9 |
| P value |
| 0.3831 | 0.2782 |
| Ki-67 prediction | |||
| ≤ 25 | 21 | 19; 90% | 53.9 ± 9.6 |
| > 25 | 23 | 19; 83% | 56.6 ± 7.6 |
| P value |
| 0.4647 | 0.2441 |
| MVI prediction | |||
| MVI present | 21 | 18; 86% | 53.9 ± 8.0 |
| MVI absent | 22 | 19; 86% | 56.0 ± 8.9 |
| P value |
| 0.9677 | 0.3810 |
Fig. 1The flowchart of the proposed HCC diagnostic and prediction system
Fig. 2Multi-modal colour ultrasound image. a. Elastography. b. Propagation map, which reflects the image quality. c. Gray-scale ultrasound. d. Viscosity modality
Fig. 3A schematic diagram of dictionary training. a. Initial DCT dictionary; b. dictionary after training
Fig. 4The overall flowchart of feature extraction. Features were extracted from different modal images and then combined. GM represents the gray-scale modality; GEM represents the gray-scale and elastography modality; GEVM represents the gray-scale, elastography and viscosity modality
Fig. 5Benign and malignant dictionaries and the feature amplitudes of the two cases. The feature amplitudes of the two cases are concentrated in different areas so that they can be distinguished. a. Benign dictionary; b. malignant dictionary; c. feature amplitude of the benign case; d. feature amplitude of the malignant case
Fig. 6Comparison of benign and malignant classification model performance before (dashed line) and after (solid line) feature selection. a. Comparison of the ROC curves of the model. b. Histogram comparison of model performance. Both figures show that feature selection has achieved good effects
Performance comparison of models before and after feature selection
| GM | GEM | GEVM | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | |
| BF | 54 | 55 | 52 | 57 | 42 | 54 | 40 | 74 | 56 | 60 | 82 | 30 |
| AF | 88 | 82 | 80 | 83 | 89 | 84 | 85 | 83 | 94 | 88 | 91 | 86 |
AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, ACC accuracy, SENS sensitivity, SPEC specificity, GM gray-scale modality, GEM gray-scale and shear wave elastography modality, GEVM gray-scale, shear wave elastography and viscosity modality, BF before selection, AF after selection. The auc, acc, sens and spec are expressed as a percentage
Diagnostic performance of GM,GEM and GEVM for classifying benign and malignant tumors
| AUC(%) | ACC(%) | SENS(%) | SPEC(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM | 88 | 82 | 80 | 83 |
| GEM | 89 | 84 | 85 | 83 |
| GEVM | 94 | 88 | 91 | 86 |
AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, ACC accuracy, SENS sensitivity, SPEC specificity, GM gray-scale modality, GEM gray-scale and shear wave elastography modality, GEVM gray-scale, shear wave elastography and viscosity modality
Fig. 7Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of benign and malignant classifications
Fig. 8Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of tumor subcategories
Diagnostic performance of GM,GEM and GEVM for liver tumor subtyping
| AUC(%) | ACC(%) | SENS(%) | SPEC(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM | 90 | 89 | 83 | 91 |
| GEM | 92 | 92 | 89 | 94 |
| GEVM | 97 | 97 | 89 | 100 |
AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, ACC accuracy, SENS sensitivity, SPEC specificity, GM gray-scale modality, GEM gray-scale and shear wave elastography modality, GEVM gray-scale, shear wave elastography and viscosity modality
Performance of GM,GEM and GEVM for indicators prediction
| PD-1 | Ki-67 | MVI | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | AUC | ACC | SENS | SPEC | |
| GM | 84 | 85 | 80 | 88 | 86 | 84 | 86 | 83 | 85 | 84 | 86 | 81 |
| GEM | 94 | 90 | 93 | 88 | 92 | 89 | 86 | 91 | 95 | 93 | 91 | 95 |
| GEVM | 97 | 92 | 100 | 88 | 94 | 93 | 95 | 91 | 98 | 95 | 91 | 100 |
AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, ACC accuracy, SENS sensitivity, SPEC specificity, GM gray-scale modality, GEM gray-scale and shear wave elastography modality, GEVM gray-scale, shear wave elastography and viscosity modality, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, Ki-67 antigen Ki 67, MVI micro vascular invasion. The auc, acc, sens and spec are expressed as a percentage
Fig. 9Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of indicator prediction. a. ROC curve of PD-1 prediction. b. ROC curve of Ki-67 prediction. c. ROC curve of MVI prediction