Hamid Abdollahi1, Bahram Mofid2, Isaac Shiri3,4, Abolfazl Razzaghdoust5, Afshin Saadipoor2, Arash Mahdavi6, Hassan Maleki Galandooz7, Seied Rabi Mahdavi8,9. 1. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Shohada-e-Tajrish Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Biomedical and Health Informatics, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Student Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Radiology, Modarres Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 7. Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Image Processing and Distributed System Lab, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. 8. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. srmahdavi@hotmail.com. 9. Radiation Biology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. srmahdavi@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop different radiomic models based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features and machine learning methods to predict early intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) response, Gleason scores (GS) and prostate cancer (Pca) stages. METHODS: Thirty-three Pca patients were included. All patients underwent pre- and post-IMRT T2-weighted (T2 W) and apparent diffusing coefficient (ADC) MRI. IMRT response was calculated in terms of changes in the ADC value, and patients were divided as responders and non-responders. A wide range of radiomic features from different feature sets were extracted from all T2 W and ADC images. Univariate radiomic analysis was performed to find highly correlated radiomic features with IMRT response, and a paired t test was used to find significant features between responders and non-responders. To find high predictive radiomic models, tenfold cross-validation as the criterion for feature selection and classification was applied on the pre-, post- and delta IMRT radiomic features, and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics was calculated as model performance value. RESULTS: Of 33 patients, 15 patients (45%) were found as responders. Univariate analysis showed 20 highly correlated radiomic features with IMRT response (20 ADC and 20 T2). Two and fifteen T2 and ADC radiomic features were found as significant (P-value ≤ 0.05) features between responders and non-responders, respectively. Several cross-combined predictive radiomic models were obtained, and post-T2 radiomic models were found as high predictive models (AUC 0.632) followed by pre-ADC (AUC 0.626) and pre-T2 (AUC 0.61). For GS prediction, T2 W radiomic models were found as more predictive (mean AUC 0.739) rather than ADC models (mean AUC 0.70), while for stage prediction, ADC models had higher prediction performance (mean AUC 0.675). CONCLUSIONS: Radiomic models developed by MR image features and machine learning approaches are noninvasive and easy methods for personalized prostate cancer diagnosis and therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To develop different radiomic models based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features and machine learning methods to predict early intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) response, Gleason scores (GS) and prostate cancer (Pca) stages. METHODS: Thirty-three Pca patients were included. All patients underwent pre- and post-IMRT T2-weighted (T2 W) and apparent diffusing coefficient (ADC) MRI. IMRT response was calculated in terms of changes in the ADC value, and patients were divided as responders and non-responders. A wide range of radiomic features from different feature sets were extracted from all T2 W and ADC images. Univariate radiomic analysis was performed to find highly correlated radiomic features with IMRT response, and a paired t test was used to find significant features between responders and non-responders. To find high predictive radiomic models, tenfold cross-validation as the criterion for feature selection and classification was applied on the pre-, post- and delta IMRT radiomic features, and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics was calculated as model performance value. RESULTS: Of 33 patients, 15 patients (45%) were found as responders. Univariate analysis showed 20 highly correlated radiomic features with IMRT response (20 ADC and 20 T2). Two and fifteen T2 and ADC radiomic features were found as significant (P-value ≤ 0.05) features between responders and non-responders, respectively. Several cross-combined predictive radiomic models were obtained, and post-T2 radiomic models were found as high predictive models (AUC 0.632) followed by pre-ADC (AUC 0.626) and pre-T2 (AUC 0.61). For GS prediction, T2 W radiomic models were found as more predictive (mean AUC 0.739) rather than ADC models (mean AUC 0.70), while for stage prediction, ADC models had higher prediction performance (mean AUC 0.675). CONCLUSIONS: Radiomic models developed by MR image features and machine learning approaches are noninvasive and easy methods for personalized prostate cancer diagnosis and therapy.
Authors: Rodrigo Delgadillo; John C Ford; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Dal Pra; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.621