| Literature DB >> 33603485 |
Yanqing Ma1, Xiren Xu1, Peipei Pang2, Yang Wen1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the role of tumor and mini-peritumor in the context of CT-based radiomics analysis to differentiate fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AML) from clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).Entities:
Keywords: angiomyolipoma; clear cell renal cell carcinoma; computed tomography; peritumor; radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33603485 PMCID: PMC7886092 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S297094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1(A) showed the VOI of tumor. (B) was the VOI of mini-peritumor, which automatically expanded 2-mm from the margin of the lesion with “A.K.” software. (C and D) was the manually divided Pr/Pf-VOI based on the mini-peritumoral VOI. (E) demonstrated that the Pr-VOI did not include blood vessels and fat in renal hilar region. (F) illustrated that if the Pf-VOI affected by the surrounding structures (such as intestine, liver, adjacent muscle, and so on), this portion was manually removed.
Figure 2The program flowchart of CT-based radiomics analysis.
Patients’ General Characteristics
| fp-AML | ccRCC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (female/male) | 38 (65.5%)/20 (34.5%) | 59 (34.3%)/113 (65.7%) | <0.001 |
| Age | 48.4±11.9 | 61.3±13.2 | <0.001 |
| Location (right/left) | 27 (46.6%)/31 (53.4%) | 82 (47.7%)/90 (52.3%) | 0.882 |
| Size (mm) | 27.1±15.5 | 34.9±12.9 | <0.001 |
Notes: The gender and location were analyzed by Chi-square test, while the age and size were dealt with independent-samples t-test. A P-value <0.05 showed statistical significance.
Figure 3The ROC curves of mini-peritumoral radiomics models of CMP and NP. The AUCs of NP were higher than those of CMP in both the training (A) and validation (B) sets.
The AUCs of Tumoral and Mini-Peritumoral Radiomics Models in NP
| Training Set | Validation Set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ra-Peritumoral | ||||
| Ra-Pr | 0.745 (0.670–0.810) | <0.001 | 0.700 (0.578–0.804) | 0.007 |
| Ra-Pf | 0.683 (0.605–0.754) | <0.001 | 0.608 (0.484–0.723) | 0.172 |
| Ra-tumor | 0.841 (0.775–0.894) | <0.001 | 0.778 (0.663–0.868) | <0.001 |
| Ra-tumor+Pr | 0.912 (0.857–0.951) | <0.001 | 0.843 (0.736–0.919) | <0.001 |
Notes: The AUCs of tumoral and mini-peritumoral radiomics models were calculated from ROC curves by DeLong test. A P-value <0.05 was defined to be statistical significance.
Figure 4The heat map of Ra-Pr to distinguish fp-AML from ccRCC. There were five optimal radiomics features left in Ra-Pr. And zero presented the ccRCC, one presented the fp-AML.
Figure 5The calibration curves of training and validation set of Ra-tumor+Pr (A and B).
The Cohort of Ra-Tumor, Ra-Peritumor, and Ra-tumor+Pr Models
| AUC | 95% CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ra-tumor | 0.820 | 0.764–0.867 | 65.52% | 84.88% | <0.001 |
| Ra-peritumor | 0.742 | 0.680–0.797 | 67.24% | 76.16% | <0.001 |
| Ra-tumor+Pr | 0.890 | 0.842–0.927 | 79.31% | 85.47% | <0.001 |
Notes: The AUCs of Ra-tumor, Ra-peritumor, and Ra-tumor+Pr models were calculated from ROC curves by DeLong test based on the cohort. A P-value <0.05 was defined to be statistical significance.