| Literature DB >> 33888125 |
Hui Zheng1, Jinning Li1, Huanhuan Liu1, Chenqing Wu1, Ting Gui1, Ming Liu1, Yuzhen Zhang1, Shaofeng Duan2, Yuhua Li3, Dengbin Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medulloblastoma (MB) is the most common pediatric embryonal tumor. Accurate identification of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) dissemination is important in prognosis prediction. Both MRI of the central nervous system (CNS) and CSF cytology will appear false positive and negative. Our objective was to investigate the added value of preoperative-enhanced T1-weighted image-based radiomic features to clinical characteristics in predicting preoperative CSF dissemination for children with MB.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral spinal fluid dissemination; Children; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medulloblastoma; Radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33888125 PMCID: PMC8063474 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02239-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Workflow of this study. CSF cerebral spinal fluid; MRI magnetic resonance imaging; mRMR minimum redundancy and maximum correlation; LASSO least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
Fig. 2Workflow of image segmentation and radiomic feature extraction. (I) The left panel shows representative tumor slices. The region of interest was delineated manually slice by slice and then a 3D VOI was generated as shown in the image on the right. (II) Radiomic features were extracted from the VOI including histogram parameters, volume and shape parameters, and texture features
Clinical and conventional MRI characteristics of children with MB
| Characteristics | Training cohort (n = 60) | Internal validation cohort ( | External validation cohort (n = 40) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-metastasis ( | Metastasis ( | Non-metastasis ( | Metastasis ( | Non-metastasis ( | Metastasis ( | ||||
| Age (mean ± SD, years) | 6.2 ± 3.5 | 4.3 ± 2.5- | 0.028 | 5.1 ±2.9 | 3.6 ±1.7 | 0.154 | 6.3 ±3.4 | 6.4 ±3.3 | 0.937 |
| Gender (%) | 1.000 | 0.597 | 0.360 | ||||||
| Male | 26 (68.4) | 15 (68.2) | 7 (46.7) | 6 (66.7) | 13 (48.1) | 9 (69.2) | |||
| Female | 12 (31.6) | 7 (31.8) | 8 (53.3) | 3 (33.3) | 14 (51.9) | 4 (30.8) | |||
| Histopathologic subtype (%) | 0.632 | 0.444 | 0.748 | ||||||
| Classic | 33 (86.8) | 17 (77.3) | 10 (66.7) | 8 (88.9) | 21 (77.8) | 11 (84.6) | |||
| Large cell/anaplastic | 1 (2.6) | 1 (4.5) | 4 (26.7) | 1 (11.1) | 1 (3.7) | 0 (0) | |||
| Desmoplastic-nodule | 4 (10.5) | 4 (18.2) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (18.5) | 2 (15.4) | |||
| Location (%) | 1.0000 | 0.507 | 1 | ||||||
| Midline | 34 (89.5) | 20 (90.9) | 15 (100.0) | 9 (100.0) | 24 (88.9) | 11 (84.6) | |||
| Nonmidline | 4 (10.5) | 2 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (11.1) | 2 (15.4) | |||
| Enhancement pattern (%) | 0.4032 | 0.052 | 0.399 | ||||||
| Diffuse | 23 (60.5) | 17 (77.3) | 8 (53.3) | 9 (100.0) | 17 (63.0) | 10 (76.9) | |||
| Incomplete | 10 (26.3) | 3 (13.6) | 4 (26.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (11.1) | 2 (15.4) | |||
| Minimal | 5 (13.2) | 2 (9.1) | 3 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (25.9) | 1 (7.7) | |||
| Necrosis or cyst(%) | 0.8664 | 0.729 | 0.311 | ||||||
| None | 5 (13.2) | 2 (9.1) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0) | 1 (7.7) | |||
| Small | 22 (57.9) | 14 (63.6) | 8 (53.3) | 5 (55.6) | 22 (81.5) | 9 (69.2) | |||
| Both | 11 (28.9) | 6 (27.3) | 6 (40.0) | 4 (44.4) | 5 (18.5) | 3 (23.1) | |||
| minADC (mean ± SD) mm2/s) | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.191 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.0212 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.171 |
minADC minimal apparent diffusion coefficient
Fig. 3The selected radiomic features. The role of selected features contributing to the developed rad-score is shown. The selected features are plotted on the y-axis, and their regression coefficients in the LASSO analysis are plotted on the x-axis
Performance of the combined clinical-radiomic predictive model
| Training cohort | Internal validation CohortcohorCohort | External validation cohort | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95%) | 0.89 (0.81–0.97) | 0.87 (0.71–1.00) | 0.73 (0.56–0.85) |
| Accuracy | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.73 |
| Sensitivity | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.78 |
| Specificity | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
Fig. 4ROC curves of the traditional feature model and nomogram. a The AUC was significantly different (0.67 and 0.89, respectively) between the clinical model and the nomogram in the training cohort. b, c The AUC of the nomogram was significantly higher than a clinical model in the internal and external cohorts. Delong’s test showed that the differences between the ROC curves of the nomogram and clinical model were significantly different in both the training and two validation cohorts. ROC receiver operating characteristic, AUC area under the curve
Fig. 5The developed clinical-radiomic nomogram for predicting CSF dissemination
Fig. 6Results of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The combined model fit well with the real situation both in the training cohort (a), internal and external validation cohorts (b, c)
Fig. 7Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the combined model had a higher net benefit than the traditional model at every threshold probability