Le-le Song1, Shun-Jun Chen2, Wang Chen1, Zhan Shi1, Xiao-Dong Wang1, Li-Na Song3, Dian-Sen Chen4. 1. The Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, Henan, China. 2. The Department of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, Henan, China. 3. Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 4. The Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, Henan, China. Songshjd@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing parotid pleomorphic adenoma (PPA) from parotid adenolymphoma (PA) is important for precision treatment, but there is a lack of readily available diagnostic methods. In this study, we aimed to explore the diagnostic value of radiomic signatures based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for PPA and PA. METHODS: The clinical characteristic and imaging data were retrospectively collected from 252 cases (126 cases in the training cohort and 76 patients in the validation cohort) in this study. Radiomic features were extracted from MRI scans, including T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) sequences and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) sequences. The radiomic features from three sequences (T1WI, T2WI and T1WI combined with T2WI) were selected using univariate analysis, LASSO correlation and Spearman correlation. Then, we built six quantitative radiomic models using the selected features through two machine learning methods (multivariable logistic regression, MLR, and support vector machine, SVM). The performances of the six radiomic models were assessed and the diagnostic efficacies of the ideal T1-2WI radiomic model and the clinical model were compared. RESULTS: The T1-2WI radiomic model using MLR showed optimal discriminatory ability (accuracy = 0.87 and 0.86, F-1 score = 0.88 and 0.86, sensitivity = 0.90 and 0.88, specificity = 0.82 and 0.80, positive predictive value = 0.86 and 0.84, negative predictive value = 0.86 and 0.84 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively) and its calibration was observed to be good (p > 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of the T1-2WI radiomic model was significantly better than that of the clinical model for both the training (0.95 vs. 0.67, p < 0.001) and validation (0.90 vs. 0.68, p = 0.001) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The T1-2WI radiomic model in our study is complementary to the current knowledge of differential diagnosis for PPA and PA.
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing parotid pleomorphic adenoma (PPA) from parotid adenolymphoma (PA) is important for precision treatment, but there is a lack of readily available diagnostic methods. In this study, we aimed to explore the diagnostic value of radiomic signatures based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for PPA and PA. METHODS: The clinical characteristic and imaging data were retrospectively collected from 252 cases (126 cases in the training cohort and 76 patients in the validation cohort) in this study. Radiomic features were extracted from MRI scans, including T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) sequences and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) sequences. The radiomic features from three sequences (T1WI, T2WI and T1WI combined with T2WI) were selected using univariate analysis, LASSO correlation and Spearman correlation. Then, we built six quantitative radiomic models using the selected features through two machine learning methods (multivariable logistic regression, MLR, and support vector machine, SVM). The performances of the six radiomic models were assessed and the diagnostic efficacies of the ideal T1-2WI radiomic model and the clinical model were compared. RESULTS: The T1-2WI radiomic model using MLR showed optimal discriminatory ability (accuracy = 0.87 and 0.86, F-1 score = 0.88 and 0.86, sensitivity = 0.90 and 0.88, specificity = 0.82 and 0.80, positive predictive value = 0.86 and 0.84, negative predictive value = 0.86 and 0.84 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively) and its calibration was observed to be good (p > 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of the T1-2WI radiomic model was significantly better than that of the clinical model for both the training (0.95 vs. 0.67, p < 0.001) and validation (0.90 vs. 0.68, p = 0.001) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The T1-2WI radiomic model in our study is complementary to the current knowledge of differential diagnosis for PPA and PA.
Authors: Yasemin Sanli; Katherine Zukotynski; Erik Mittra; Delphine L Chen; Helen Nadel; Ryan D Niederkohr; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Soo Jung Nam; Sung-Min Chun; Youngheun Jo; Jeong Hoon Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gerben Lassche; Wim van Boxtel; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Adriana C H van Engen-van Grunsven; Carla M L van Herpen Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Ralph Th Leijenaar; Marta Bogowicz; Arthur Jochems; Frank Jp Hoebers; Frederik Wr Wesseling; Sophie H Huang; Biu Chan; John N Waldron; Brian O'Sullivan; Derek Rietveld; C Rene Leemans; Ruud H Brakenhoff; Oliver Riesterer; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Matthias Guckenberger; Kristian Ikenberg; Philippe Lambin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 3.039