| Literature DB >> 35113213 |
Xiaojun Chen1, Yuanzhe Li2, Yongjin Zhou3, Yan Yang4, Jiansheng Yang5, Peipei Pang6, Yi Wang2, Jianmin Cheng4, Haibo Chen7,8, Yifan Guo9,10.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a nonenhanced CT-based radiomic signature for the differentiation of iodinated contrast extravasation from intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH) following mechanical thrombectomy.Entities:
Keywords: Extravasation of diagnostic and therapeutic materials; Intracranial haemorrhage; Radiomics; Thrombectomy; Tomography, X-ray computed
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35113213 PMCID: PMC9213289 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08541-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 7.034
Fig. 1Delineation of the hyperattenuating areas using ITK-SNAP software. a A hyperattenuating area in the left lentiform nucleus on nonenhanced CT. b Manual segmentation along the hyperattenuating area contour on the transverse section. c The ROI of the hyperattenuating area on a transverse section is displayed as the red area. d 3D ROI for the whole hyperattenuating area. 3D three-dimensional, CT computed tomography, ROI region of interest
Fig. 2Flowchart of the study shows the recruitment pathway for patients. ICE iodinated contrast extravasation, IPH intraparenchymal haemorrhage
Fig. 3Selected radiomic features and their corresponding coefficients
Fig. 4Waterfall plots of the radiomic signature. The waterfall plot shows the distribution of the adjusted Rad-scores and diagnoses of each patient in the training cohort (a) and the validation cohort (b). The default is set to IPH (the yellow bar) above the baseline and ICE (the purple bar) below the baseline. This plot depicts the association between the predicted and actual diagnoses in which mismatching of the colour coding indicates misclassification by the Rad-score. Rad-score minus the cutoff value is the adjusted Rad-score. ICE iodinated contrast extravasation, IPH intraparenchymal haemorrhage, Rad-score radiomics score
Diagnostic performance of the radiomic signature in the training and validation cohorts
| AUC | 95% CI | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training cohort | 0.848 | 0.780–0.917 | 76.9% | 75.0% | 80.0% | 85.7% | 66.7% |
| Validation cohort | 0.826 | 0.705–0.948 | 77.6% | 76.7% | 78.9% | 85.2% | 68.2% |
AUC area under the curve, CI confidence interval, NPV negative predictive value, PPV positive predictive value
Fig. 5ROC curves and calibration curves of the radiomic signature in the training cohort (a, c) and the validation cohort (b, d). The 45° solid grey line of the calibration curve represents a perfect prediction, and the pink dotted line represents the predictive performance of the radiomic signature. ROC receiver operating characteristic