BACKGROUND: We aim to analyze the ability to detect epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations on chest CT images of patients with lung adenocarcinoma using radiomics and/or multi-level residual convolutionary neural networks (MCNNs). METHODS: We retrospectively collected 1,010 consecutive patients in Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2013 to 2017, among which 510 patients were EGFR-mutated and 500 patients were wild-type. The patients were randomly divided into a training set (810 patients) and a validation set (200 patients) according to a balanced distribution of clinical features. The CT images and the corresponding EGFR status measured by Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) method of the patients in the training set were utilized to construct both a radiomics-based model (MRadiomics) and MCNNs-based model (MMCNNs). The MRadiomics and MMCNNs were combined to build the ModelRadiomics+MCNNs (MRadiomics+MCNNs). Clinical data of gender and smoking history constructed the clinical features-based model (MClinical). MClinical was then added into MRadiomics, MMCNNs, and MRadiomics+MCNNs to establish the ModelRadiomics+Clinical (MRadiomics+Clinical), the ModelMCNNs+Clinical (MMCNNs+Clinical) and the ModelRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical (MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical). All the seven models were tested in the validation set to ascertain whether they were competent to detect EGFR mutations. The detection efficiency of each model was also compared in terms of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The AUC of the MRadiomics, MMCNNs and MRadiomics+MCNNs to predict EGFR mutations was 0.740, 0.810 and 0.811 respectively. The performance of MMCNNs was better than that of MRadiomics (P=0.0225). The addition of clinical features did not improve the AUC of the MRadiomics (P=0.623), the MMCNNs (P=0.114) and the MRadiomics+MCNNs (P=0.058). The MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical demonstrated the highest AUC value of 0.834. The MMCNNs did not demonstrate any inferiority when compared with the MRadiomics+MCNNs (P=0.742) and the MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical (P=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Both of the MRadiomics and the MCNNs could predict EGFR mutations on CT images of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. The MMCNNs outperformed the MRadiomics in the detection of EGFR mutations. The combination of these two models, even added with clinical features, is not significantly more efficient than MMCNNs alone.
BACKGROUND: We aim to analyze the ability to detect epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations on chest CT images of patients with lung adenocarcinoma using radiomics and/or multi-level residual convolutionary neural networks (MCNNs). METHODS: We retrospectively collected 1,010 consecutive patients in Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2013 to 2017, among which 510 patients were EGFR-mutated and 500 patients were wild-type. The patients were randomly divided into a training set (810 patients) and a validation set (200 patients) according to a balanced distribution of clinical features. The CT images and the corresponding EGFR status measured by Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) method of the patients in the training set were utilized to construct both a radiomics-based model (MRadiomics) and MCNNs-based model (MMCNNs). The MRadiomics and MMCNNs were combined to build the ModelRadiomics+MCNNs (MRadiomics+MCNNs). Clinical data of gender and smoking history constructed the clinical features-based model (MClinical). MClinical was then added into MRadiomics, MMCNNs, and MRadiomics+MCNNs to establish the ModelRadiomics+Clinical (MRadiomics+Clinical), the ModelMCNNs+Clinical (MMCNNs+Clinical) and the ModelRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical (MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical). All the seven models were tested in the validation set to ascertain whether they were competent to detect EGFR mutations. The detection efficiency of each model was also compared in terms of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The AUC of the MRadiomics, MMCNNs and MRadiomics+MCNNs to predict EGFR mutations was 0.740, 0.810 and 0.811 respectively. The performance of MMCNNs was better than that of MRadiomics (P=0.0225). The addition of clinical features did not improve the AUC of the MRadiomics (P=0.623), the MMCNNs (P=0.114) and the MRadiomics+MCNNs (P=0.058). The MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical demonstrated the highest AUC value of 0.834. The MMCNNs did not demonstrate any inferiority when compared with the MRadiomics+MCNNs (P=0.742) and the MRadiomics+MCNNs+Clinical (P=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Both of the MRadiomics and the MCNNs could predict EGFR mutations on CT images of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. The MMCNNs outperformed the MRadiomics in the detection of EGFR mutations. The combination of these two models, even added with clinical features, is not significantly more efficient than MMCNNs alone.
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: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Yuhua Gu; Hua Wang; Virendra Kumar; Olya Grove; Sam Hawkins; Jongphil Kim; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Jongphil Kim; Hua Wang; Ying Liu; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Rene Korn; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Satrajit Basu; Steven Eschrich; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Susan K Hobbs; Gongyi Shi; Ron Homer; Griff Harsh; Scott W Atlas; Mark D Bednarski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Chintan Parmar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Mohammed Jermoumi; Sara Carvalho; Raymond H Mak; Sushmita Mitra; B Uma Shankar; Ron Kikinis; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Philippe Lambin; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Erica L Carpenter; Despina Kontos; Bardia Yousefi; Michael J LaRiviere; Eric A Cohen; Thomas H Buckingham; Stephanie S Yee; Taylor A Black; Austin L Chien; Peter Noël; Wei-Ting Hwang; Sharyn I Katz; Charu Aggarwal; Jeffrey C Thompson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Martina Sollini; Francesco Bartoli; Andrea Marciano; Roberta Zanca; Riemer H J A Slart; Paola A Erba Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-12-09