| Literature DB >> 32703988 |
Ning Ding1, Yunxiu Hao1, Zhiwei Wang2, Xiao Xuan3, Lingyan Kong1, Huadan Xue1, Zhengyu Jin4.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the role of early postoperative CT texture analysis in aneurysm progression. Ninety-nine patients who had undergone post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm CT serial scans were enrolled from July 2014 to December 2019. The clinical and traditional imaging features were obtained. Aneurysm texture analysis was performed using three methods-the grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), the grey-level run length matrix (GLRLM), and the grey-level difference method (GLDM). A multilayer perceptron neural network was applied as a classifier, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and area under the curve (AUC) analysis were employed to illustrate the classification performance. No difference was found in the morphological and clinical features between the expansion (+) and (-) groups. GLCM yielded the best performance with an accuracy of 85.17% and an AUC of 0.90, followed by GLRLM with an accuracy of 87.23% and an AUC of 0.8615, and GLDM with an accuracy of 86.09% and an AUC of 0.8313. All three texture analyses showed superior predictive ability over clinical risk factors (accuracy: 69.41%; AUC: 0.6649), conventional imaging features (accuracy: 69.02%; AUC: 0.6747), and combined (accuracy: 75.29%; AUC: 0.7249). Early post-EVAR arterial phase-derived aneurysm texture analysis is a better predictor of later aneurysm expansion than clinical factors and traditional imaging evaluation combined.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32703988 PMCID: PMC7378225 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69226-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flowchart of the current study.
Figure 2Segmentation and feature extraction process. (a) Maximal axial plane of preoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm in contrast-enhanced CT angiography. (b) Maximal axial plane of post EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm in contrast-enhanced CT angiography. Two radiologists reviewed all the axial contrast CT scans and defined the maximum aneurysm cross section using MATLAB (R2016a, Mathworks, United States) software to manually outline the aneurysm sac area outside the stent. Abbreviation: EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair.
Detailed features in three greyscale matrices.
| GLCM matrix | GLDM matrix | GLRLM matrix |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | Contrast | Short-run emphasis |
| Correlation | Angular second moment | Long-run emphasis |
| Inertia | Entropy | Grey-level nonuniformity |
| Entropy | Mean | Run percentage |
| Inverse difference moment | Inverse difference moment | Run length nonuniformity |
| Sum average | Low-grey-level run emphasis | |
| Sum variance | High-grey-level run emphasis | |
| Sum entropy | ||
| Difference average | ||
| Difference variance | ||
| Difference entropy | ||
| Two information measures of correlation |
Grey-Level Co-occurrence Matrix = GLCM.
Grey-Level Run Length Matrix = GLRLM.
Grey-Level Difference Method = GLDM.
Figure 3Aneurysm volume measurement by the three dimensional (3D) post-processing software (IntelliSpace Portal Version 9.0.4, Philips Healthcare, Netherlands). (a) Visual reconstruction technique. (b–d) Multi-planar reconstruction. (b) Coronal plane. (c) Sagittal plane. (d) Axial plane. The aneurysm boundary was manually delineated along the outer contour using three-dimensional multi-planar reconstruction.
Conventional CT features in the study cohort.
| All N = 99 | Aneurysm expansion (+) group n = 38 | Aneurysm expansion (−) group n = 61 | Univariable analysis sig | OR | Logistic regression sig | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First postoperative maximal aneurysm diameter (mm) | 50.9 ± 14.8 | 52.7 ± 17.3 | 49.7 ± 13.0 | 0.337 | 0.998 | 0.917 |
| CT-reported endoleak | No endoleak: 80 | No endoleak: 26 | No endoleak: 54 | 0.063 | 1.0 | 0.071 |
| Type I endoleak: 7 | Type I endoleak: 6 | Type I endoleak: 1 | 11.514 | |||
| Type II endoleak: 12 | Type II endoleak: 6 | Type II endoleak: 6 | 2.116 | |||
| First-interval aneurysm volume (cc) | 156.9 ± 133.6 | 167.1 ± 168.7 | 150.6 ± 107.3 | 0.553 | … | … |
| Second-interval aneurysm volume, (cc) | 158.6 ± 162.9 | 191.8 ± 225.2 | 137.9 ± 104.6 | 0.110 | … | … |
Clinical risk factors for AAA in the study cohort.
| All N = 99 | Aneurysm expansion (+) group n = 38 | Aneurysm expansion (−) group n = 61 | Univariable analysis sig | OR | Logistic regression sig | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | M: 87 | M: 33 | M: 54 | 0.805 | … | … |
| F: 12 | F: 5 | F: 7 | ||||
| Age (years) | 68.5 ± 8.3 | 70.0 ± 7.4 | 67.5 ± 8.8 | 0.159 | … | … |
| Hypertension | No: 36 | No: 12 | No: 24 | 0.519 | … | … |
| Yes: 60 | Yes: 24 | Yes: 36 | ||||
| NA: 3 | NA: 2 | NA: 1 | ||||
| Hypertension duration (years) | 9.7 ± 13.7 | 11.2 ± 12.2 | 8.7 ± 14.6 | 0.389 | … | … |
| Systolic pressure (mmHg) | 146.3 ± 26.4 | 146.9 ± 25.5 | 145.9 ± 27.2 | 0.858 | … | … |
| Diastolic pressure (mmHg) | 83.6 ± 16.1 | 82.3 ± 16.9 | 84.0 ± 15.6 | 0.763 | … | … |
| Heart disease | No: 66 | No: 22 | No: 44 | 0.147 | … | … |
| Yes: 33 | Yes: 16 | Yes: 17 | ||||
| Diabetes | No: 84 | No: 30 | No: 54 | 0.130 | … | … |
| Yes: 14 | Yes: 8 | Yes: 6 | ||||
| NA: 1 | NA:1 | |||||
| Smoking history | No: 37 | No: 15 | No: 22 | 0.783 | … | … |
| Yes: 61 | Yes: 23 | Yes: 38 | ||||
| NA: 1 | NA: 1 | |||||
| Current Smoking Status | No: 64 | No: 23 | No: 41 | 0.186 | … | … |
| Yes: 31 | Yes: 13 | Yes: 19 | ||||
| NA: 3 | NA: 2 | NA: 1 | ||||
| Smoking duration (years) | 21.6 ± 20.4 | 21.5 ± 20.5 | 21.6 ± 20.5 | 0.982 | … | … |
| Alcohol consumption | No: 66 | No: 21 | No: 45 | 0.062 | 2.014 | 0.132 |
| Yes: 31 | Yes: 16 | Yes: 15 | ||||
| NA: 2 | NA: 1 | NA: 1 | ||||
| Current consumption status | No: 78 | No: 28 | No: 50 | 0.361 | … | … |
| Yes: 19 | Yes: 9 | Yes: 10 | ||||
| NA: 2 | NA: 1 | NA: 1 | ||||
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 4.2 ± 1.0 | 4.3 ± 1.3 | 4.2 ± 0.9 | 0.921 | … | … |
| Triglyceride (mmol/L) | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 1.6 ± 1.0 | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 0.916 | … | … |
| High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.168 | … | … |
| Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.5 ± 1.0 | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 0.674 | … | … |
Optimal cutoff values from ROC curves and sensitivity/specificity to predict aneurysm expansion.
| Texture features | AUC | Cutoff values | Sensitivity | PPV | NPV | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLCM | 0.9010 | 0.3950 | 0.8438 | 0.7575 | 0.9113 | 0.8559 | 0.8517 |
| GLDM | 0.8313 | 0.2610 | 1 | 0.7143 | 1 | 0.7867 | 0.8609 |
| GLRLM | 0.8615 | 0.3371 | 0.9375 | 0.7547 | 0.9617 | 0.8375 | 0.8723 |
| Conventional imaging model | 0.6747 | 0.4014 | 0.5789 | 0.8764 | 0.5625 | 0.8689 | 0.6902 |
| Clinical model | 0.6649 | 0.0174 | 0.7647 | 0.7358 | 0.6250 | 0.5882 | 0.6941 |
| Conventional imaging model + clinical model | 0.7249 | 0.4598 | 0.8235 | 0.7778 | 0.7097 | 0.6471 | 0.7529 |
Figure 4ROC curves among the different models. (a) The GLCM matrix attained the highest AUC of 0.90, with a sensitivity of 0.8438 and a specificity of 0.8559. (b) The GLDM matrix attained AUC of 0.8313, with a sensitivity of 1 and a specificity of 0.7867. (d) The GLRLM matrix attained AUC of 0.8615, with a sensitivity of 0.9375 and a specificity of 0.8375. (d) Traditional imaging evaluation attained the highest AUC of 0.6747, with a sensitivity of 0.5789 and a specificity of 0.8689. (e) The clinical risk models attained the highest AUC of 0.6649, with a sensitivity of 0.7647 and a specificity of 0.5882. (f) The traditional imaging and clinical risk factors combined attained the highest AUC of 0.7249, with a sensitivity of 0.8235 and a specificity of 0.6471. AUC area under the curve.