Burak Kocak1, Ece Ates2, Emine Sebnem Durmaz3, Melis Baykara Ulusan2, Ozgur Kilickesmez2. 1. Department of Radiology, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. drburakkocak@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Radiology, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the possible influence of segmentation margin on each step (feature reproducibility, selection, and classification) of the machine learning (ML)-based high-dimensional quantitative computed tomography (CT) texture analysis (qCT-TA) of renal clear cell carcinomas (RcCCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, 47 patients with RcCC were included from a public database. Two segmentations were obtained by two radiologists for each tumour: (i) contour-focused and (ii) margin shrinkage of 2 mm. Texture features were extracted from original, filtered, and transformed CT images. Feature selection was done using a correlation-based algorithm. The ML classifier was k-nearest neighbours. Classifications were performed with and without using synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Reference standard was nuclear grade (low versus high). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson's correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, and McNemar's test were used in the analysis. RESULTS: The segmentation with margin shrinkage of 2 mm (772 of 828; 93.2%) yielded more texture features with excellent reproducibility (ICC ≥ 0.9) than contour-focused segmentation (714 of 828; 86.2%), p < 0.0001. The feature selection algorithms resulted in different feature subsets for two segmentation datasets with only one common feature. All ML-based models based on contour-focused segmentation (area under the curve [AUC] range, 0.865-0.984) performed better than those with margin shrinkage of 2 mm (AUC range, 0.745-0.887), p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Each step of the ML-based high-dimensional qCT-TA was susceptible to a slight change of 2 mm in segmentation margin. Despite yielding fewer features with excellent reproducibility, use of the contour-focused segmentation provided better classification performance for distinguishing nuclear grade. KEY POINTS: • Each step of a machine learning (ML)-based high-dimensional quantitative computed tomography texture analysis (qCT-TA) is sensitive to even a slight change of 2 mm in segmentation margin. • Despite yielding fewer texture features with excellent reproducibility, performing the segmentation focusing on the outermost boundary of the tumours provides better classification performance in ML-based qCT-TA of renal clear cell carcinomas for distinguishing nuclear grade. • Findings of an ML-based high-dimensional qCT-TA may not be reproducible in clinical practice even using the same feature selection algorithm and ML classifier unless the possible influence of the segmentation margin is considered.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the possible influence of segmentation margin on each step (feature reproducibility, selection, and classification) of the machine learning (ML)-based high-dimensional quantitative computed tomography (CT) texture analysis (qCT-TA) of renal clear cell carcinomas (RcCCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, 47 patients with RcCC were included from a public database. Two segmentations were obtained by two radiologists for each tumour: (i) contour-focused and (ii) margin shrinkage of 2 mm. Texture features were extracted from original, filtered, and transformed CT images. Feature selection was done using a correlation-based algorithm. The ML classifier was k-nearest neighbours. Classifications were performed with and without using synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Reference standard was nuclear grade (low versus high). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson's correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, and McNemar's test were used in the analysis. RESULTS: The segmentation with margin shrinkage of 2 mm (772 of 828; 93.2%) yielded more texture features with excellent reproducibility (ICC ≥ 0.9) than contour-focused segmentation (714 of 828; 86.2%), p < 0.0001. The feature selection algorithms resulted in different feature subsets for two segmentation datasets with only one common feature. All ML-based models based on contour-focused segmentation (area under the curve [AUC] range, 0.865-0.984) performed better than those with margin shrinkage of 2 mm (AUC range, 0.745-0.887), p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Each step of the ML-based high-dimensional qCT-TA was susceptible to a slight change of 2 mm in segmentation margin. Despite yielding fewer features with excellent reproducibility, use of the contour-focused segmentation provided better classification performance for distinguishing nuclear grade. KEY POINTS: • Each step of a machine learning (ML)-based high-dimensional quantitative computed tomography texture analysis (qCT-TA) is sensitive to even a slight change of 2 mm in segmentation margin. • Despite yielding fewer texture features with excellent reproducibility, performing the segmentation focusing on the outermost boundary of the tumours provides better classification performance in ML-based qCT-TA of renal clear cell carcinomas for distinguishing nuclear grade. • Findings of an ML-based high-dimensional qCT-TA may not be reproducible in clinical practice even using the same feature selection algorithm and ML classifier unless the possible influence of the segmentation margin is considered.
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Amnon Zisman; Allan J Pantuck; Fredrick Dorey; Debby H Chao; Barbara J Gitlitz; Nancy Moldawer; Dana Lazarovici; Jean B deKernion; Robert A Figlin; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A S Jewett; Kamal Mattar; Joan Basiuk; Christopher G Morash; Stephen E Pautler; D Robert Siemens; Simon Tanguay; Ricardo A Rendon; Martin E Gleave; Darrel E Drachenberg; Raymond Chow; Hannah Chung; Joseph L Chin; Neil E Fleshner; Andrew J Evans; Brenda L Gallie; Masoom A Haider; John R Kachura; Ghada Kurban; Kimberly Fernandes; Antonio Finelli Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Luke A Hunter; Shane Krafft; Francesco Stingo; Haesun Choi; Mary K Martel; Stephen F Kry; Laurence E Court Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Chintan Parmar; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; André L A J Dekker; Robert J Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Jean-Jacques Patard; Michela de Martino; Karim Bensalah; Gregory Verhoest; Alexandre de la Taille; Clément-Claude Abbou; Ernst Peter Allhoff; Giuseppe Carrieri; Stephen B Riggs; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Igor Frank; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Amy L Weaver; Horst Zincke Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: William Rogers; Sithin Thulasi Seetha; Turkey A G Refaee; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Renée W Y Granzier; Abdalla Ibrahim; Simon A Keek; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Sergey P Primakov; Manon P L Beuque; Damiënne Marcus; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Fadila Zerka; Cary J G Oberije; Janita E van Timmeren; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039