Joost J M van Griethuysen1,2, Doenja M J Lambregts3, Stefano Trebeschi1,2, Max J Lahaye1, Frans C H Bakers4, Roy F A Vliegen5, Geerard L Beets2,6, Hugo J W L Aerts2,7, Regina G H Beets-Tan1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.lambregts@nki.nl. 4. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, Computational Imaging and Bioinformatics Laboratory, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of advanced radiomics analysis to morphological assessment by expert radiologists to predict a good or complete response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer using baseline staging MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the primary staging MRIs [prior to chemoradiotherapy (CRT)] of 133 rectal cancer patients from 2 centers. First, two expert radiologists subjectively estimated the likelihood of achieving a "complete response" (ypT0) and "good response" (TRG 1-2), using a 5-point score (based on TN-stage, MRF/EMVI-status, size/signal/shape). Next, tumor volumes were segmented on high b value DWI (semi-automated, corrected by 2 non-expert and 2-expert readers, resulting in 5 segmentations), copied to the remaining sequences after which a total of 2505 radiomic features were extracted from T2W, low and high b value DWI and ADC. Stability of features for noise due to inter-reader and inter-scanner and protocol variations was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Using data from center 1 (n = 86; training set), top 9 features were selected using minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance and combined in a logistic regression model. Finally, diagnostic performance of the fitted models was assessed on data from center 2 (n = 47; validation set) and compared to the performance of the radiologists. RESULTS: The Radiomic models resulted in AUCs of 0.69-0.79 (with similar results for the segmentations performed by expert/non-expert readers) to predict response, results similar to the morphologic prediction by the expert radiologists (AUC 0.67-0.83). Radiomics using semi-automatically generated segmentations (without manual input) did not result in significant predictive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics could predict response to therapy with comparable diagnostic performance as expert radiologists, regardless of whether image segmentation was performed by non-expert or expert readers, indicating that expert input is not required in order for the radiomics workflow to produce significant predictive performance.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of advanced radiomics analysis to morphological assessment by expert radiologists to predict a good or complete response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer using baseline staging MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the primary staging MRIs [prior to chemoradiotherapy (CRT)] of 133 rectal cancerpatients from 2 centers. First, two expert radiologists subjectively estimated the likelihood of achieving a "complete response" (ypT0) and "good response" (TRG 1-2), using a 5-point score (based on TN-stage, MRF/EMVI-status, size/signal/shape). Next, tumor volumes were segmented on high b value DWI (semi-automated, corrected by 2 non-expert and 2-expert readers, resulting in 5 segmentations), copied to the remaining sequences after which a total of 2505 radiomic features were extracted from T2W, low and high b value DWI and ADC. Stability of features for noise due to inter-reader and inter-scanner and protocol variations was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Using data from center 1 (n = 86; training set), top 9 features were selected using minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance and combined in a logistic regression model. Finally, diagnostic performance of the fitted models was assessed on data from center 2 (n = 47; validation set) and compared to the performance of the radiologists. RESULTS: The Radiomic models resulted in AUCs of 0.69-0.79 (with similar results for the segmentations performed by expert/non-expert readers) to predict response, results similar to the morphologic prediction by the expert radiologists (AUC 0.67-0.83). Radiomics using semi-automatically generated segmentations (without manual input) did not result in significant predictive performance. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics could predict response to therapy with comparable diagnostic performance as expert radiologists, regardless of whether image segmentation was performed by non-expert or expert readers, indicating that expert input is not required in order for the radiomics workflow to produce significant predictive performance.
Authors: Iram Shahzadi; Alex Zwanenburg; Annika Lattermann; Annett Linge; Christian Baldus; Jan C Peeken; Stephanie E Combs; Markus Diefenhardt; Claus Rödel; Simon Kirste; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Michael Baumann; Mechthild Krause; Esther G C Troost; Steffen Löck Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Joao Miranda; Gary Xia Vern Tan; Maria Clara Fernandes; Onur Yildirim; John A Sims; Jose de Arimateia Batista Araujo-Filho; Felipe Augusto de M Machado; Antonildes N Assuncao-Jr; Cesar Higa Nomura; Natally Horvat Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 2.420
Authors: Qiaoyu Xu; Yanyan Xu; Hongliang Sun; Tao Jiang; Sheng Xie; Bee Yen Ooi; Yi Ding Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Andrea Delli Pizzi; Antonio Maria Chiarelli; Piero Chiacchiaretta; Martina d'Annibale; Pierpaolo Croce; Consuelo Rosa; Domenico Mastrodicasa; Stefano Trebeschi; Doenja Marina Johanna Lambregts; Daniele Caposiena; Francesco Lorenzo Serafini; Raffaella Basilico; Giulio Cocco; Pierluigi Di Sebastiano; Sebastiano Cinalli; Antonio Ferretti; Richard Geoffrey Wise; Domenico Genovesi; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Massimo Caulo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 4.996