Dong Han1, Yong Yu1, Nan Yu1, Shan Dang1, Hongpei Wu2, Ren Jialiang3, Taiping He1. 1. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, Shaanxi, China. 2. Department of Pathology, Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, Shaanxi, China. 3. GE Healthcare China, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the prediction models for the ISUP/WHO grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on CT radiomics and conventional contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). METHODS: The corticomedullary phase images of 119 cases of low-grade (I and II) and high-grade (III and IV) ccRCC based on 2016 ISUP/WHO pathological grading criteria were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were randomly divided into training and validation set by stratified sampling according to 7:3 ratio. Prediction models of ccRCC differentiation were constructed using CT radiomics and conventional CECT findings in the training setandwere validated using validation set. The discrimination, calibration, net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement index (IDI) of the two prediction models were further compared. The decision curve was used to analyze the net benefit of patients under different probability thresholds of the two models. RESULTS: In the training set, the C-statistics of radiomics prediction model was statistically higher than that of CECT (p < 0.05), with NRI of 9.52% and IDI of 21.6%, both with statistical significance (p < 0.01).In the validation set, the C-statistics of radiomics prediction model was also higher but did not show statistical significance (p = 0.07). The NRI and IDI was 14.29 and 33.7%, respectively, both statistically significant (p < 0.01). Validation set decision curve analysis showed the net benefit improvement of CT radiomics prediction model in the range of 3-81% over CECT. CONCLUSION: The prediction model using CT radiomics in corticomedullary phase is more effective for ccRCC ISUP/WHO grade than conventional CECT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: As a non-invasive analysis method, radiomics can predict the ISUP/WHO grade of ccRCC more effectively than traditional enhanced CT.
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the prediction models for the ISUP/WHO grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on CT radiomics and conventional contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). METHODS: The corticomedullary phase images of 119 cases of low-grade (I and II) and high-grade (III and IV) ccRCC based on 2016 ISUP/WHO pathological grading criteria were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were randomly divided into training and validation set by stratified sampling according to 7:3 ratio. Prediction models of ccRCC differentiation were constructed using CT radiomics and conventional CECT findings in the training setandwere validated using validation set. The discrimination, calibration, net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement index (IDI) of the two prediction models were further compared. The decision curve was used to analyze the net benefit of patients under different probability thresholds of the two models. RESULTS: In the training set, the C-statistics of radiomics prediction model was statistically higher than that of CECT (p < 0.05), with NRI of 9.52% and IDI of 21.6%, both with statistical significance (p < 0.01).In the validation set, the C-statistics of radiomics prediction model was also higher but did not show statistical significance (p = 0.07). The NRI and IDI was 14.29 and 33.7%, respectively, both statistically significant (p < 0.01). Validation set decision curve analysis showed the net benefit improvement of CT radiomics prediction model in the range of 3-81% over CECT. CONCLUSION: The prediction model using CT radiomics in corticomedullary phase is more effective for ccRCC ISUP/WHO grade than conventional CECT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: As a non-invasive analysis method, radiomics can predict the ISUP/WHO grade of ccRCC more effectively than traditional enhanced CT.
Authors: Heidi Coy; Jonathan R Young; Michael L Douek; Alan Pantuck; Matthew S Brown; James Sayre; Steven S Raman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-01
Authors: Marcos F Dall'Oglio; Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-Filho; Alberto A Antunes; Alexandre Crippa; Luciano Nesrallah; Pierre D Gonçalves; Kátia R M Leite; Miguel Srougi Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Hemamali Samaratunga; Guido Martignoni; John N Nacey; John R Srigley Journal: Histopathology Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Claudia-Gabriela Moldovanu; Bianca Boca; Andrei Lebovici; Attila Tamas-Szora; Diana Sorina Feier; Nicolae Crisan; Iulia Andras; Mircea Marian Buruian Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-12-23