| Literature DB >> 34567999 |
Yineng Zheng1,2, Liping Chen1, Mengqi Liu1, Jiahui Wu1, Renqiang Yu1, Fajin Lv1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to develop a multiparametric MRI radiomics-based machine learning model for the preoperative prediction of clinical success for high-intensity-focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of uterine leiomyomas.Entities:
Keywords: HIFU; machine learning; preoperative prediction; radiomics; uterine leiomyoma ablation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34567999 PMCID: PMC8461183 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.618604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1The conceptual flowchart of the present study. (I) lesion segmentation and preprocessing. (II) Quantitative radiomics features extraction. (III) Feature selection and classification. (IV) Performance evaluation of machine learning model. T2WI, T2-weighted imaging; RFE, recursive feature elimination; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; SVM, support vector machine; KNN, k-nearest neighbors; RF, random forest.
Figure 2Patient recruitment pathway.
Parameters for MRI sequences.
| Parameter | T2WI | DWI |
|---|---|---|
| Scanning plane | Axial | Axial |
| TR/TE (ms) | 4,380/106 | 4,000/62.9 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 5 | 6 |
| Slice gap (mm) | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Field of view (cm) | 28 × 22.4 | 38.0 × 45.8 |
| Matrix | 320 × 224 | 128 × 130 |
| N/A | 800 |
N/A, not applicable.
Figure 3Two cases for delineating ROI. The preoperative MR images for uterine leiomyomas with sufficient ablation on (A) T2WI image and (B) ADC map from DWI and with nonsufficient ablation on (C) T2WI image and (D) ADC map from DWI.
The comparison of demographic information and radiological image characteristics between primary and validation cohorts.
| Characteristics | Primary cohort | Validation cohort | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 104 | 26 | |
| Ablation efficacy | |||
| High (≥70%) | 56 | 14 | 1.000 |
| Low (<70%) | 48 | 12 | |
| Age | 38.32 ± 6.27 | 39.14 ± 6.59 | 0.211 |
| Volume (mm3) | 91.54 (52.08–159.07) | 79.12 (46.02–122.47) | 0.322 |
| Size (mm) | 56.85 (45.32–67.87) | 49.45 (43.20–64.43) | 0.618 |
| Type | |||
| Submucous | 5 | 2 | 0.481 |
| Myometrial | 89 | 20 | |
| Subserous | 10 | 4 | |
| Location | |||
| Anterior wall | 64 | 15 | 0.893 |
| Posterior wall | 40 | 11 | |
| T2 signal intensity | |||
| Hyperintensity | 40 | 9 | 0.892 |
| Hypointensity | 64 | 17 | |
| T2 signal homogeneity | |||
| Homogeneous | 14 | 7 | 0.133 |
| Inhomogeneous | 90 | 19 | |
| Uterine position | |||
| Anteversion | 73 | 15 | 0.385 |
| Retroversion | 31 | 11 | |
| Energy efficiency factor (J/mm3) | 3.6 (1.6–7.1) | 3.7 (1.8–6.9) | 0.118 |
| Sonication time (s) | 790 (380–1,360) | 815 (405–1,420) | 0.247 |
p-Values obtained using independent-sample t-test.
p-Values obtained using Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test.
p-Values obtained using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Demographic information and radiological image characteristics between the high and low ablation groups.
| Characteristics | Primary cohort | p-Value | Validation cohort | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High ablation (≥70%) | Low ablation (<70%) | High ablation (≥70%) | Low ablation (<70%) | |||
|
| 56 | 48 | 14 | 12 | ||
| Age | 38.76 ± 5.96 | 37.81 ± 6.65 | 0.442 | 39.07 ± 5.86 | 38.58 ± 7.84 | 0.858 |
| Volume (mm3) | 84.65 (50.6–152.9) | 99.05 (56.52–180.10) | 0.173 | 73.9 (57.32–121.70) | 88.15 (68.65–117.75) | 0.311 |
| Size (mm) | 53.15 (41.47–63.62) | 59.65 (46.55–70.45) | 0.202 | 49.80 (35.40–52.75) | 57.75 (48.67–71.85) | 0.197 |
| Type | ||||||
| Submucous | 3 | 2 | 0.914 | 1 | 1 | 0.791 |
| Myometrial | 47 | 42 | 10 | 10 | ||
| Subserous | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Location | ||||||
| Anterior wall | 35 | 29 | 0.987 | 6 | 9 | 0.209 |
| Posterior wall | 21 | 19 | 8 | 3 | ||
| T2 signal intensity | ||||||
| Hyperintensity | 19 | 21 | 0.409 | 13 | 4 | 0.003 |
| Hypointensity | 37 | 27 | 1 | 8 | ||
| T2 signal homogeneity | ||||||
| Homogeneous | 10 | 4 | 0.258 | 7 | 1 | 0.030 |
| Inhomogeneous | 46 | 44 | 7 | 11 | ||
| Uterine position | ||||||
| Anteversion | 46 | 27 | 0.007 | 6 | 9 | 0.209 |
| Retroversion | 10 | 21 | 8 | 3 | ||
p-Values obtained using independent-sample t-test.
p-Values obtained using Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test.
p-Values obtained using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 4Performance of HIFU ablation prediction with different machine learning methods. The heatmaps show the AUCs of model with four classifiers and three feature selection methods in different feature numbers for (A) the primary cohort and (B) the validation cohort. The annotation of the heatmap (located to the right of the entire image) illustrates that red or yellow represents a high AUC and pink or blue represents a low AUC. (C) Model performance presentation for the four optimal combinations of feature selection and machine learning in the validation cohort.
The best performance of four radiomics models in the primary and validation cohorts.
| Classifier |
| Cohort | AUC [95% CI] | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFE-KNN | 18 | Primary | 0.798 [0.754–0.836] | 0.764 | 0.723 | 0.816 | 0.863 | 0.762 |
| Validation | 0.762 [0.721–0.807] | 0.744 | 0.716 | 0.802 | 0.822 | 0.743 | ||
| LASSO-LR | 8 | Primary | 0.861 [0.824–0.922] | 0.833 | 0.775 | 0.917 | 0.885 | 0.790 |
| Validation | 0.784 [0.755–0.834] | 0.769 | 0.605 | 0.894 | 0.881 | 0.712 | ||
| ReliefF–RF | 15 | Primary | 0.875 [0.829–0.933] | 0.851 | 0.809 | 0.892 | 0.878 | 0.830 |
| Validation | 0.854 [0.816-0.907] | 0.817 | 0.784 | 0.904 | 0.894 | 0.801 | ||
| ReliefF-SVM | 18 | Primary | 0.911 [0.854–0.973] | 0.884 | 0.857 | 0.921 | 0.918 | 0.853 |
| Validation | 0.887 [0.848–0.939] | 0.849 | 0.814 | 0.896 | 0.903 | 0.823 |
Figure 5Graph shows receiver operating characteristic curves of ReliefF-SVM model for outcome prediction of HIFU treatment in (A) the primary and (B) validation cohorts.
Figure 6Calibration curves of the radiomics model in (A) the primary and (B) validation cohorts. Calibration curves depict the calibration of ReliefF-SVM model in terms of the agreement between the predicted probability and actual outcomes. The y-axis represents the actual rate of HIFU probability. The x-axis represents the predicted probability. The diagonal blue line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The pink line represents the performance of the radiomics model, where a closer fit to the diagonal blue line represents a better prediction. Decision curve analysis for the ReliefF-SVM and ReliefF-RF models in (C) the primary and (D) validation cohorts. The y-axis measures the net benefit. The red and green lines represent the radiomics model. The blue line represents the assumption that all patients received high HIFU ablation. The black line represents the assumption that no patients received high HIFU ablation.