Sarah O S Osman1, Ralph T H Leijenaar2, Aidan J Cole3, Ciara A Lyons3, Alan R Hounsell4, Kevin M Prise5, Joe M O'Sullivan3, Philippe Lambin2, Conor K McGarry4, Suneil Jain3. 1. Centre of Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.osman@qub.ac.uk. 2. The D-Lab: Decision Support for Precision Medicine, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Centre of Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom; Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, United Kingdom. 4. Centre of Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, United Kingdom. 5. Centre of Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the role of Computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics features in prostate cancer risk stratification. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 506 patients with prostate cancer collected from a clinically annotated database. After applying exclusion criteria, 342 patients were included in the final analysis. CT-based radiomics features were extracted from planning CT scans for prostate gland-only structure, and machine learning was used to train models for Gleason score (GS) and risk group (RG) classifications. Repeated cross-validation was used. The discriminatory performance of the developed models was assessed using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Classifiers using CT-based radiomics features distinguished between GS ≤ 6 versus GS ≥ 7 with AUC = 0.90 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus GS 7(4 + 3) with AUC = 0.98. Developed classifiers also showed excellent performance in distinguishing low versus high RG (AUC = 0.96) and low versus intermediate RG (AUC = 1.00), but poorer performance was observed for GS 7 versus GS > 7 (AUC = 0.69). An overall modest performance was observed for validation on holdout data sets with the highest AUC of 0.75 for classifiers of low versus high RG and an AUC of 0.70 for GS 7 versus GS > 7. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that radiomics features from routinely acquired planning CT scans could provide insights into prostate cancer aggressiveness in a noninvasive manner. Assessing models on training data sets, the classifiers were especially accurate in discerning high-risk from low-risk patients and in classifying GS 7 versus GS > 7 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus G7(4 + 3); however, classifiers were less adept at distinguishing high RG versus intermediate RG. External validation and prospective studies are warranted to verify the presented findings. These findings could potentially guide targeted radiation therapy strategies in radical intent radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To explore the role of Computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics features in prostate cancer risk stratification. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 506 patients with prostate cancer collected from a clinically annotated database. After applying exclusion criteria, 342 patients were included in the final analysis. CT-based radiomics features were extracted from planning CT scans for prostate gland-only structure, and machine learning was used to train models for Gleason score (GS) and risk group (RG) classifications. Repeated cross-validation was used. The discriminatory performance of the developed models was assessed using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Classifiers using CT-based radiomics features distinguished between GS ≤ 6 versus GS ≥ 7 with AUC = 0.90 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus GS 7(4 + 3) with AUC = 0.98. Developed classifiers also showed excellent performance in distinguishing low versus high RG (AUC = 0.96) and low versus intermediate RG (AUC = 1.00), but poorer performance was observed for GS 7 versus GS > 7 (AUC = 0.69). An overall modest performance was observed for validation on holdout data sets with the highest AUC of 0.75 for classifiers of low versus high RG and an AUC of 0.70 for GS 7 versus GS > 7. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that radiomics features from routinely acquired planning CT scans could provide insights into prostate cancer aggressiveness in a noninvasive manner. Assessing models on training data sets, the classifiers were especially accurate in discerning high-risk from low-risk patients and in classifying GS 7 versus GS > 7 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus G7(4 + 3); however, classifiers were less adept at distinguishing high RG versus intermediate RG. External validation and prospective studies are warranted to verify the presented findings. These findings could potentially guide targeted radiation therapy strategies in radical intent radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
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
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Carrieri; Gian Maria Busetto; Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Alessandro Sciarra; Martina Maggi; Felice Crocetto; Biagio Barone; Vincenzo Francesco Caputo; Michele Marchioni; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Ciro Imbimbo; Francesco Alessandro Mistretta; Stefano Luzzago; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Luigi Cormio; Riccardo Autorino; Octavian Sabin Tătaru Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-07-04
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Alisa S Bettermann; Fabian Bamberg; Matthias Benndorf; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Tobias Fechter; Tobias Hölscher; Radu Grosu; Arturo Chiti; Anca L Grosu; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 11.556