PURPOSE: To investigate the value of T2-radiomics combined with anatomical MRI staging criteria from pre-treatment rectal MRI in predicting complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent rectal MRI before neoadjuvant CRT from October 2011 to January 2015 and then surgery. Surgical histopathologic analysis was used as the reference standard for pathologic complete response. Anatomical MRI staging criteria were extracted from our institutional standardized radiology report. In radiomics analysis, one radiologist manually segmented the primary tumor on T2-weighted images for all 102 patients (i.e., training set); two different radiologists independently segmented 66/102 patients (i.e., validation set). 108 radiomics features were extracted. Then, scanner-independent features were identified and least absolute shrinkage operator analysis was used to extract a radiomics score. Finally, a support vector machine model combining the radiomics score and anatomical MRI staging criteria was compared against both anatomical MRI-only and radiomics-only models using the deLong test. RESULTS: The study included 102 patients (42 women; median age = 61 years).The radiomics score produced an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75. Comparable results were found using the validation set (AUCs = 0.75 and 0.71 for each radiologist, respectively). The anatomical MRI-only model had an accuracy of 67% (sensitivity 42%, specificity 72%); when adding the radiomics score, the accuracy increased to 74% (sensitivity 58%, specificity 77%). CONCLUSION: Combining T2-radiomics and anatomical MRI staging criteria from pre-treatment rectal MRI may help to stratify patients based on the prediction of treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of T2-radiomics combined with anatomical MRI staging criteria from pre-treatment rectal MRI in predicting complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent rectal MRI before neoadjuvant CRT from October 2011 to January 2015 and then surgery. Surgical histopathologic analysis was used as the reference standard for pathologic complete response. Anatomical MRI staging criteria were extracted from our institutional standardized radiology report. In radiomics analysis, one radiologist manually segmented the primary tumor on T2-weighted images for all 102 patients (i.e., training set); two different radiologists independently segmented 66/102 patients (i.e., validation set). 108 radiomics features were extracted. Then, scanner-independent features were identified and least absolute shrinkage operator analysis was used to extract a radiomics score. Finally, a support vector machine model combining the radiomics score and anatomical MRI staging criteria was compared against both anatomical MRI-only and radiomics-only models using the deLong test. RESULTS: The study included 102 patients (42 women; median age = 61 years).The radiomics score produced an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75. Comparable results were found using the validation set (AUCs = 0.75 and 0.71 for each radiologist, respectively). The anatomical MRI-only model had an accuracy of 67% (sensitivity 42%, specificity 72%); when adding the radiomics score, the accuracy increased to 74% (sensitivity 58%, specificity 77%). CONCLUSION: Combining T2-radiomics and anatomical MRI staging criteria from pre-treatment rectal MRI may help to stratify patients based on the prediction of treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy.
Authors: S Sassen; M de Booij; M Sosef; R Berendsen; G Lammering; R Clarijs; M Bakker; R Beets-Tan; F Warmerdam; R Vliegen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Kent J Peterson; Matthew T Simpson; Melissa K Drezdzon; Aniko Szabo; Robin A Ausman; Andrew S Nencka; Paul M Knechtges; Carrie Y Peterson; Kirk A Ludwig; Timothy J Ridolfi Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Vetri Sudar Jayaprakasam; Viktoriya Paroder; Peter Gibbs; Raazi Bajwa; Natalie Gangai; Ramon E Sosa; Iva Petkovska; Jennifer S Golia Pernicka; James Louis Fuqua; David D B Bates; Martin R Weiser; Andrea Cercek; Marc J Gollub Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 7.034
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