| Literature DB >> 31185611 |
Noriyuki Fujima1, Yukie Shimizu2, Daisuke Yoshida3, Satoshi Kano4, Takatsugu Mizumachi5, Akihiro Homma6, Koichi Yasuda7, Rikiya Onimaru8, Osamu Sakai9, Kohsuke Kudo10, Hiroki Shirato11,12.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive power for treatment outcome of a machine-learning algorithm combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived data in patients with sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). Thirty-six primary lesions in 36 patients were evaluated. Quantitative morphological parameters and intratumoral characteristics from T2-weighted images, tumor perfusion parameters from arterial spin labeling (ASL) and tumor diffusion parameters of five diffusion models from multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were obtained. Machine learning by a non-linear support vector machine (SVM) was used to construct the best diagnostic algorithm for the prediction of local control and failure. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using a 9-fold cross-validation scheme, dividing patients into training and validation sets. Classification criteria for the division of local control and failure in nine training sets could be constructed with a mean sensitivity of 0.98, specificity of 0.91, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.94, negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.97, and accuracy of 0.96. The nine validation data sets showed a mean sensitivity of 1.0, specificity of 0.82, PPV of 0.86, NPV of 1.0, and accuracy of 0.92. In conclusion, a machine-learning algorithm using various MR imaging-derived data can be helpful for the prediction of treatment outcomes in patients with sinonasal SCCs.Entities:
Keywords: diffusion; machine learning; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion; squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; texture analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185611 PMCID: PMC6627127 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11060800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Data of patients with local control and failure.
| Treatment Outcome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Control | Local Failure | |||
|
| T-stage | T1 | 0 | 0 |
| T2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| T3 | 10 | 3 | ||
| T4 | 11 | 11 | ||
| N-stage | N0 | 18 | 12 | |
| N1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| N2 | 2 | 2 | ||
| N3 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| Tumor volume (mL) | 25.3 ± 16.5 | 34.3 ± 28.6 | |
| Surface area (cm2) | 50.4 ± 18.7 | 69.6 ± 29.7 | ||
| Sphericity | 0.71 ± 0.08 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | ||
|
| Relative mean signal | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 3.4 ± 0.6 | |
| Coefficient of variance | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | ||
| Contrast | 35.1 ± 6 | 41.3 ± 8.6 | ||
| Correlation | 0.84 ± 0.02 | 0.86 ± 0.03 | ||
| Energy (×10−3) | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | ||
| Homogeneity | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | ||
|
| Absolute TBF (mL/100g/min) | 156.7 ± 32.9 | 133.7 ± 29.3 | |
| Relative TBF | 7.47 ± 0.83 | 6.25 ± 1.22 | ||
|
| ADC (×10−3 mm2/s) | 0.91 ± 0.1 | 0.87 ± 0.13 | |
| f (×102 %) | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.07 | ||
| D* (×10−3 mm2/s) | 19.5 ± 7.5 | 16.7 ± 5.7 | ||
| D (×10−3 mm2/s) | 0.75 ± 0.06 | 0.73 ± 0.09 | ||
| K | 0.73 ± 0.07 | 0.76 ± 0.08 | ||
| Dk (×10−3 mm2/s) | 1.24 ± 0.14 | 1.22 ± 0.19 | ||
| alpha (α) | 0.69 ± 0.07 | 0.67 ± 0.08 | ||
| DDC (×10−3 mm2/s) | 1.14 ± 0.12 | 1.12 ± 0.17 | ||
| f1 (×102 %) | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.04 | ||
| f2 (×102 %) | 0.23 ± 0.04 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | ||
| f3 (×102 %) | 0.62 ± 0.06 | 0.61 ± 0.08 | ||
| D1 (×10−3 mm2/s) | 32.9 ± 7.8 | 28.1 ± 6.5 | ||
| D2 (×10−3 mm2/s) | 1.03 ± 0.16 | 0.92 ± 0.15 | ||
| D3 (×10−3 mm2/s) | 0.64 ± 0.07 | 0.62 ± 0.1 | ||
Data are means ± standard deviations. TBF, tumor blood flow; ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; f, perfusion fraction; D*, fast diffusion coefficient; D, true diffusion coefficient; K, kurtosis value; Dk, kurtosis corrected diffusion coefficient; α, diffusion heterogeneity; DDC, distributed diffusion coefficient; f1, perfusion-related diffusion fraction; f2, intermediate diffusion fraction; f3, slow diffusion fraction; D1, perfusion-related diffusion coefficient; D2, intermediate diffusion coefficient; D3, slow diffusion coefficient.
Results of the Training Set Data (n=32 in each set).
| Set No. | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.97 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Sphericity, Relative TBF, Contrast, D2, f | |||||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Sphericity, Contrast, T-stage, Tumor volume | |||||
| 3 | 1 | 0.85 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.94 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Contrast, Sphericity, Tumor volume, f | |||||
| 4 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 0.9 | 0.91 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Sphericity, D2, Energy, Contrast | |||||
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Sphericity, Relative TBF, D2, Contrast, Tumor volume | |||||
| 6 | 1 | 0.85 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.94 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Sphericity, f, Contrast, Energy | |||||
| 7 | 1 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.97 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Sphericity, Relative TBF, Contrast, Tumor volume, ADC | |||||
| 8 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Sphericity, Contrast, D2, Tumor volume | |||||
| 9 | 0.95 | 0.9 | 0.95 | 0.9 | 0.94 |
| Top 5 ranked variables: Relative TBF, Sphericity, D2, Contrast, Tumor volume | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; TBF, tumor blood flow; D2, intermediate diffusion coefficient; f, perfusion fraction; ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.
Patient characteristics (n = 36).
| Number of Patients | |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| Range | 43–73 |
| Median | 59 |
| Average | 58.7 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 28 |
| Female | 8 |
| Primary tumor site | |
| Nasal cavity | 6 |
| Paranasal sinus | 30 |
| T-stage | |
| T1 | 0 |
| T2 | 1 |
| T3 | 13 |
| T4a | 17 |
| T4b | 5 |
| N-stage | |
| N0 | 30 |
| N1 | 2 |
| N2 | 4 |
| N3 | 0 |
| Smoking status | |
| Tabacco smokers | 31 |
| Packs-years | |
| Range | 2–161 |
| Median | 34 |
| Average | 40.4 |
| Alcohol use | |
| Occasional or non-drinker | 10 |
| Moderate use | 6 |
| Heavy use | 20 |
Figure 1The overall process for parameter acquisition and machine-learning analysis.