Yuebo Liu1, Jiabao Zheng2, Jizhi Zhao1, Lijiang Yu1, Xiaoping Lu3, Zhihui Zhu1, Chunlan Guo1, Tao Zhang4. 1. Department of Stomatology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Implant Dentistry, Beijing Stomatological Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Stomatology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. drtzhang@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of magnetic resonance image (MRI)-based biomarkers for identifying benign and malignant parotid tumors via diagnostic model analysis. METHODS: This retrospective study included 109 patients (development cohort and validation cohort) who underwent MRI preoperatively, including T1- and T2-weighted images. Parameters based on 2D or 3D texture analysis were extracted from tumor lesions by MaZda software, fisher discriminant and bootstrap method were used to perform parameter reduction, diagnostic models with the selected biomarkers were established along with clinical data, model performance (discrimination and calibration) was furtherly evaluated by internal and external validation, decision curve analysis was applied to measure the improvement of clinical benefits. RESULTS: S(5,5) Entrop, S(0,1) ASM, WavEnHH (s-4), S(1,1,0) Entropy and Perc.10% were significantly associated with the pathological diagnosis of parotid tumor (benign versus malignancy), when adding these biomarkers to the regression analysis, model performance significantly improved in the development cohort (likelihood-ratio-test; p < 0.05, with an increase of AUC from 0.72 (reference model) to 0.85), and these results were maintained in a small external validation cohort. Decision curve analysis indicated that clinical benefit was greater with the application of MRI-based biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based texture analysis is proven to be an effective tool in differentiating benign and malignant parotid tumors, preoperative diagnosis was improved with the selected biomarkers compared to the reference model.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of magnetic resonance image (MRI)-based biomarkers for identifying benign and malignant parotid tumors via diagnostic model analysis. METHODS: This retrospective study included 109 patients (development cohort and validation cohort) who underwent MRI preoperatively, including T1- and T2-weighted images. Parameters based on 2D or 3D texture analysis were extracted from tumor lesions by MaZda software, fisher discriminant and bootstrap method were used to perform parameter reduction, diagnostic models with the selected biomarkers were established along with clinical data, model performance (discrimination and calibration) was furtherly evaluated by internal and external validation, decision curve analysis was applied to measure the improvement of clinical benefits. RESULTS: S(5,5) Entrop, S(0,1) ASM, WavEnHH (s-4), S(1,1,0) Entropy and Perc.10% were significantly associated with the pathological diagnosis of parotid tumor (benign versus malignancy), when adding these biomarkers to the regression analysis, model performance significantly improved in the development cohort (likelihood-ratio-test; p < 0.05, with an increase of AUC from 0.72 (reference model) to 0.85), and these results were maintained in a small external validation cohort. Decision curve analysis indicated that clinical benefit was greater with the application of MRI-based biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based texture analysis is proven to be an effective tool in differentiating benign and malignant parotid tumors, preoperative diagnosis was improved with the selected biomarkers compared to the reference model.
Entities:
Keywords:
Differentiation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Parotid tumor; Radiomics; Texture analysis
Authors: Piotr M Szczypiński; Michał Strzelecki; Andrzej Materka; Artur Klepaczko Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Satrajit Basu; Anders Berglund; Steven A Eschrich; Matthew B Schabath; Kenneth Forster; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; David Fenstermacher; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Philippe Lambin; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Julia Fruehwald-Pallamar; Christian Czerny; Laura Holzer-Fruehwald; Stefan F Nemec; Christina Mueller-Mang; Michael Weber; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 25.391