| Literature DB >> 32468251 |
Jan C Peeken1,2,3, Mohamed A Shouman4, Markus Kroenke5,6, Isabel Rauscher5, Tobias Maurer6,7, Jürgen E Gschwend8, Matthias Eiber9,5, Stephanie E Combs4,10,9.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In recurrent prostate carcinoma, determination of the site of recurrence is crucial to guide personalized therapy. In contrast to prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, computed tomography (CT) has only limited capacity to detect lymph node metastases (LNM). We sought to develop a CT-based radiomic model to predict LNM status using a PSMA radioguided surgery (RGS) cohort with histological confirmation of all suspected lymph nodes (LNs).Entities:
Keywords: CT; Lymph node; PSMA; Prostate carcinoma; Radioguided surgery; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32468251 PMCID: PMC7680305 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04864-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 9.236
Fig. 1Schematic overview of the radiomics workflow. (1) Separation of a training patient cohort with internal imaging studies and a testing patient cohort with external imaging studies. (2) Manual segmentation of lymph nodes with a clear correlation to histology. (3) Preprocessing and radiomics feature extraction. (4) Modeling of prediction models using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for radiomic models and logistic regression for conventional CT parameters. (5) Testing and evaluation of model performance using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curves and decision curve analysis
Patient and lymph node characteristics. Lymph node metastases status was determined by histological confirmation following radioguided surgery using 99mTechnetium- or 111Indium-PSMA-Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radionuclides
| Training cohort (A) | Testing cohort (B) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | |
| Number of Lymph nodes | 87 | 59.4% | 62 | 41.6% |
| Number of patients | 47 | 58.7% | 33 | 41.3% |
| Age median (range) | 69 years (49–78) | 69 years (42–76) | ||
| Histology | ||||
| Histology-confirmed positive LNs | 61 | 70.1% | 49 | 79% |
| Histology-confirmed negative LNs | 26 | 29.9% | 13 | 21% |
| Short-axis diameter (mm) | ||||
| Mean | 63 mm | 68 mm | ||
| SD | ± 28 mm | ± 34 mm | ||
| Range | (25–193 mm) | (32–170 mm) | ||
| Volume (cm3) | ||||
| Mean | 0.16 cm3 | 0.14 cm3 | ||
| SD | ± 0.13 cm3 | ± 0.07 cm3 | ||
| Range | (0.06–1.04 cm3) | (0.05–0.51 cm3) | ||
Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values of the prediction models for lymph node metastases. Four radiomic models using different input features were compared with conventional measures. The respective AUC values and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are depicted
| Model | Training cohort | Testing cohort |
|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | AUC (95% CI) | |
| LN short diameter | 0.76 (0.65–0.86) | 0.84 (0.74–0.94) |
| LN Volume | 0.74 (0.62–0.84) | 0.80 (0.67–0.91) |
| Expert rating | 0.65 (0.59–0.70) | 0.67 (0.61–0.74) |
| Radiomics-texture | 0.78 (0.67–0.88) | 0.78 (0.65–0.91) |
| Radiomics-shape | 0.77 (0.66–0.86) | 0.83 (0.69–0.93) |
| Radiomics-intensity | 0.76 (0.65–0.86) | 0.73 (0.57–0.88) |
| Radiomics-LBP | 0.86 (0.77–0.94) | 0.90 (0.78–1.00) |
| Radiomics-combined | 0.89 (0.81–0.95) | 0.95 (0.88–0.99) |
Fig. 2Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the prediction of lymph node metastases status. Depiction of ROC curves for all models in the training (top row) and test (bottom row) patient cohorts. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) is depicted. The blue areas represent the 95% confidence intervals
Univariate and multivariate analysis for histology confirmed lymph node recurrence. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression of the linear predictors of the conventional parameters and the best performing radiomics model (Radiomics-combined)
| Clinical Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Expert rating | 2.7 | 0-Inf | 1 | – | – | – |
| LN short diameter | 5.6 | 2–25 | 0.026 | 2.34 | 0.59–15.2 | 0.34 |
| LN Volume | 9.8 | 2.1–8.6 | 0.08 | – | – | – |
| Radiomics-combined | 22 | 5.2–190 | 0.0024 | 15.5 | 3.35–149 | 0.0035* |
LN lymph node, Inf infinity. *Significant result
Classification metrics of all tested models. Four radiomic models using different input features were compared with conventional measures. The respective performance metrics (Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), balanced accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)) determined on the test set are reported
| Model | MCC | Balanced accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LN short diameter | 0.32 | 0.67 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.29 |
| LN Volume | 0.37 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 0.38 |
| Expert rating | 0.32 | 0.67 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.29 |
| Radiomics-texture | 0.30 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.62 | 0.88 | 0.38 |
| Radiomics-shape | 0.37 | 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.37 |
| Radiomics-intensity | 0.25 | 0.57 | 0.98 | 0.15 | 0.81 | 0.67 |
| Radiomics-LBP | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 0.9 |
| Radiomics-combined | 0.64 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.46 | 0.88 | 1.00 |
Fig. 3Lymph node–specific decision curve. The decision curve analysis plots the expected net benefit against the threshold capacity on the test set. The net benefit is calculated by subtracting the proportion of false-positive lymph nodes from the proportion of true-positive lymph nodes, weighted by the relative harm of a false-negative and false-positive result. The decision curves for “treating no lymph nodes” and “treating all lymph nodes” are depicted as reference. A decision model shows a clinical benefit if it achieves larger net benefit values than both reference strategies or any other model. This decision curve reflects the treatment decision on the lymph node level. The best radiomic model “Radiomics-combined” was split at an optimal cutpoint which was determined on the training set. It is compared to LN short diameter split at 0.8 cm