| Literature DB >> 31747902 |
Xiaolu Ma1, Fu Shen2, Yan Jia3, Yuwei Xia3, Qihua Li3, Jianping Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the significance of MRI-based radiomics model derived from high-resolution T2-weighted images (T2WIs) in predicting tumor pathological features of rectal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Histological grade; Magnetic resonance imaging; N stage; Radiomics; Rectal cancer; T stage
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31747902 PMCID: PMC6864926 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-019-0392-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Example image for rectal cancer contouring. a The outline of ROI on one slice of axial T2-weighted MR image. b Sagittal reconstruction. c Coronal reconstruction. d Volume rendering
Supplemental data (parameters)
| Model | Degree of Differentiation | T stage | N stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| MLP | hidden_layer_sizes = (30) | hidden_layer_sizes = (30) | hidden_layer_sizes = (30) |
| LR | penalty = ‘l2’, solver = ‘liblinear’ | penalty = ‘l2’, solver = ‘liblinear’ | penalty = ‘l2’, solver = ‘liblinear’ |
| SVM | kernel = ‘rbf’, probability = True | kernel = ‘Poly’, probability = True | kernel = ‘rbf’, probability = True |
| DT | criterion = ‘gini’ | criterion = ‘gini’ | criterion = ‘gini’ |
| RF | n_estimators = 15 | n_estimators = 15 | n_estimators = 15 |
| KNN | n_neighbors = 5 | n_neighbors = 5 | n_neighbors = 5 |
Pathological characteristics of the patients
| pathological characteristics | Total | Training data (70%) | Test data (30%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| n percentile (%) | n percentile (%) | n percentile (%) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 94 (61.8) | 63 (59.4) | 31 (67.4) |
| Female | 58 (38.2) | 43 (40.6) | 15 (32.6) |
| Age (years) | |||
| Mean | 58.9 ± 8.3 | 52.3 ± 10. | 58.9 ± 8.0 |
| Range | 24–78 | 24–77 | 25–78 |
| Histological type | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 131 (86.2) | 91 (85.8) | 40 (87.0) |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 15 (9.9) | 11 (10.4) | 4 (8.7) |
| Signet ring cell carcinoma | 6 (3.9) | 4 (3.8) | 2 (4.3) |
| Pathologic differentiation | |||
| High | 20 (13.2) | 14 (13.2) | 6 (13.0) |
| Moderate | 112 (73.7) | 78 (73.6) | 34 (73.9) |
| Poor | 20 (13.2) | 14 (13.2) | 6 (13.0) |
| T stage | |||
| T1 | 22 (14.5) | 15 (14.2) | 7 (15.2) |
| T2 | 44 (28.9) | 28 (26.4) | 16 (34.8) |
| T3 | 74 (48.7) | 53 (50.0) | 21 (45.7) |
| T4 | 12 (7.9) | 10 (9.4) | 2 (4.3) |
| N stage | |||
| N0 | 94 (61.9) | 67 (63.2) | 27 (58.7) |
| T1 | 37 (24.3) | 27 (25.5) | 10 (21.7) |
| T2 | 21 (13.8) | 12 (11.3) | 9 (19.6) |
Radiomics features
| No | Degree of differentiation | T stage | N stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | original_firstorder_Minimum | original_shape_Size | WaveletHLH_firstorder_Medianvalue |
| 2 | original_firstorder_Entropy | WaveletLLH_firstorder_Medianvalue | WaveletHLL_glrlm_SRLGE |
| 3 | original_shape_Compactness | WaveletLHH_firstorder_Meanvalue | WaveletHHL_firstorder_Energy |
| 4 | original_glrlm_RLV | WaveletLHH_firstorder_Uniformity | WaveletLLH_firstorder_Medianvalue |
| 5 | WaveletLLH_firstorder_Skewness | WaveletHHL_firstorder_Medianvalue | WaveletHHH_glszm_LGZE |
| 6 | WaveletLLH_firstorder_Uniformity | WaveletLLL_glszm_SZE | WaveletLLL_glrlm_LRHGE |
| 7 | WaveletHLH_firstorder_Kurtosis | WaveletLLL_glszm_ZSN | WaveletHHL_firstorder_Skewness |
| 8 | WaveletLHL_glszm_LGZE | WaveletLLL_ngtdm_Coarseness | WaveletLLL_glcm_cshad |
| 9 | WaveletLLL_glrlm_LRHGE | WaveletHLH_glcm_inf1h | WaveletLLL_glrlm_HGRE |
| 10 | WaveletHHH_glrlm_RLV | WaveletHHL_glcm_senth | WaveletHLL_ngtdm_Coarseness |
| 11 | WaveletHHH_glszm_LGZE | WaveletHHL_glrlm_LRHGE | WaveletHLL_glcm_inf1h |
| 12 | WaveletHHL_glcm_inf2h | ||
| 13 | WaveletHHH_glcm_cprom | ||
| 14 | WaveletHHH_glcm_corrm | ||
| 15 | WaveletLHH_glrlm_GLV |
Training set
| pathological features | model | mean AUC | std | sensitivity | specificity | Youden index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| degree of differentiation | MLP | 0.942 | 0.041 | 0.871 | 0.978 | 0.849 |
| LR | 0.874 | 0.052 | 0.806 | 0.903 | 0.709 | |
| SVM | 0.871 | 0.037 | 0.806 | 0.892 | 0.698 | |
| DT | 0.892 | 0.040 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| RF | 0.983 | 0.020 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| KNN | 0.933 | 0.062 | 0.978 | 0.860 | 0.838 | |
| T stage | MLP | 0.824 | 0.087 | 0.804 | 0.900 | 0.704 |
| LR | 0.792 | 0.083 | 0.826 | 0.733 | 0.559 | |
| SVM | 0.764 | 0.083 | 0.913 | 0.783 | 0.696 | |
| DT | 0.722 | 0.060 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| RF | 0.713 | 0.031 | 1.0 | 0.983 | 0.983 | |
| KNN | 0.712 | 0.081 | 0.956 | 0.600 | 0.556 | |
| N stage | MLP | 0.694 | 0.122 | 0.861 | 0.677 | 0.538 |
| LR | 0.651 | 0.089 | 0.831 | 0.492 | 0.323 | |
| SVM | 0.684 | 0.143 | 0.831 | 0.738 | 0.569 | |
| DT | 0.713 | 0.060 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| RF | 0.794 | 0.100 | 1.0 | 0.954 | 0.954 | |
| KNN | 0.663 | 0.060 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Test set
| pathological features | model | AUC | 95% CI | sensitivity | specificity | Youden index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| degree of differentiation | MLP | 0.825 | 0.659–0.967 | 0.833 | 0.750 | 0.583 |
| LR | 0.808 | 0.649–0.946 | 0.833 | 0.725 | 0.558 | |
| SVM | 0.862 | 0.750–0.967 | 0.833 | 0.850 | 0.683 | |
| DT | 0.854 | 0.700–0.963 | 0.833 | 0.875 | 0.708 | |
| RF | 0.858 | 0.735–0.964 | 0.833 | 0.750 | 0.583 | |
| KNN | 0.692 | 0.519–0.844 | 0.833 | 0.450 | 0.283 | |
| T stage | MLP | 0.809 | 0.690–0.905 | 0.762 | 0.741 | 0.503 |
| LR | 0.762 | 0.633–0.873 | 0.714 | 0.630 | 0.344 | |
| SVM | 0.753 | 0.623–0.857 | 0.667 | 0.630 | 0.297 | |
| DT | 0.667 | 0.543–0.783 | 0.667 | 0.667 | 0.334 | |
| RF | 0.727 | 0.591–0.843 | 0.714 | 0.704 | 0.418 | |
| KNN | 0.720 | 0.586–0.830 | 0.809 | 0.407 | 0.216 | |
| N stage | MLP | 0.667 | 0.531–0.799 | 0.690 | 0.722 | 0.412 |
| LR | 0.437 | 0.294–0.575 | 0.448 | 0.444 | −0.108 | |
| SVM | 0.592 | 0.435–0.736 | 0.552 | 0.500 | 0.052 | |
| DT | 0.723 | 0.599–0.832 | 0.724 | 0.722 | 0.446 | |
| RF | 0.746 | 0.622–0.872 | 0.793 | 0.722 | 0.515 | |
| KNN | 0.560 | 0.428–0.69 | 0.621 | 0.500 | 0.121 |
Fig. 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the prediction model for the statistically significant prognostic factors. ROC curves of SVM classifier for pathological differentiation: (a1) training set (AUC, 0.871; std., 0.037; sensitivity, 80.6%; specificity, 89.2%); (a2) test set (AUC, 0.862; 95% CI, 0.750–0.967; sensitivity, 83.3%; specificity, 85.0%). ROC curves of MLP classifier for T stage: (b1) training set (AUC, 0.824; std., 0.087; sensitivity, 80.4%; specificity, 90.0%); (b2) test set (AUC, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.690–0.905; sensitivity, 76.2%; specificity, 74.1%). ROC curves of RF classifier for N stage: (c1) training set (AUC, 0.794; std., 0.100; sensitivity, 100.0%; specificity, 95.4%); (c2) test set (AUC, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.622–0.872; sensitivity, 79.3%; specificity, 72.2%)