| Literature DB >> 35574320 |
Xitong Zhao1, Pan Liang1, Liuliang Yong1, Yan Jia2, Jianbo Gao1.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of computer-aided discriminative diagnosis among hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatic metastasis, hepatic hemangioma, hepatic cysts, hepatic adenoma, and hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia, based on radiomics analysis of unenhanced CT images.Entities:
Keywords: computer-aided design; diagnosis; liver neoplasms; medical oncology; multidetector computed tomography; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35574320 PMCID: PMC9092943 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.650797
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Basic flow chart showing the radiomics method devised for the differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions.
Figure 2Lasso althorithm on feature selection. (A) Lasso path; (B) MSE path; (C) coefficients in Lasso model. With Lasso model, 27 features were selected according to the optimal alpha.
Description of the selected radiomic features with their associated feature group and filter.
| Radiomic feature | Radiomic group | Associated filter |
|---|---|---|
| 10Percentile | First order | original |
| Cluster Shade | glcm | original |
| Large Dependence High Gray Level Emphasis | gldm | original |
| Small Area Low Gray Level Emphasis | glszm | original |
| Strength | ngtdm | original |
| Inverse Variance | glcm | logarithm |
| Dependence Non Uniformity Normalized | gldm | logarithm |
| 90Percentile | First order | exponential |
| Run Length Non Uniformity | glrlm | exponential |
| Minimum | First order | square |
| Run Length Non Uniformity | glrlm | square |
| 10Percentile | First order | squareroot |
| Inverse Variance | glcm | squareroot |
| Large Dependence High Gray Level Emphasis | gldm | squareroot |
| Zone Percentage | glszm | squareroot |
| Interquartile Range | First order | lbp-2D |
| Root Mean Squared | First order | lbp-2D |
| Kurtosis | First order | lbp-2D |
| Mean | First order | wavelet-LHL |
| Maximum Probability | glcm | wavelet-LHL |
| Kurtosis | First order | wavelet-LHH |
| Mean | First order | wavelet-HLL |
| Maximum Probability | glcm | wavelet-HLL |
| Kurtosis | First order | wavelet-LLH |
| Imc2 | glcm | wavelet-LLH |
| Correlation | glcm | wavelet-HLH |
| Kurtosis | First order | wavelet-HHL |
GLCM, Gray-level Co-occurrence Matrix; GLDM, Gray Level Dependence Matrix; GLRLM, Gray Level Run Length Matrix; GLSZM, Gray-Level Size Zone Matrix; NGTDM, Neighbouring Gray Tone Difference Matrix.
Diagnostic performance of radiomics models among six focal hepatic lesions based on unenhanced CT images.
| Category | Training set (n=359) | Testing set (n=93) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95%CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | OA | AUC (95%CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | OA | |
| 0.982 (0.97-0.99) | 0.885 | 0.980 | 0.964 | 0.88 | 0.933 (0.90-0.96) | 0.625 | 0.935 | 0.882 | 0.76 | |
| 0.942 (0.92-0.96) | 0.819 | 0.956 | 0.925 | 0.904 (0.85-0.95) | 0.857 | 0.931 | 0.914 | |||
| 0.963 (0.95-0.97) | 0.880 | 0.938 | 0.922 | 0.897 (0.83-0.96) | 0.769 | 0.940 | 0.892 | |||
| 1 (0.99-1.00) | 0.987 | 1 | 0.997 | 0.995 (0.99-1.00) | 0.950 | 0.986 | 0.978 | |||
| 0.987 (0.97-1.00) | 0.765 | 0.991 | 0.981 | 0.920 (0.86-0.97) | 0.400 | 0.955 | 0.925 | |||
| 0.987 (0.97-1.00) | 0.842 | 0.985 | 0.978 | 0.923 (0.86-0.98) | 0.400 | 0.966 | 0.935 | |||
OA, overall accuracy; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3ROC curves of SVM methods to classification (six kinds of focal hepatic lesions).
Figure 4The confusion matrix (six kinds of focal hepatic lesions). Label: overall accuracy (OA) = (true positives+ true negatives)/(true positives+ false positives+ false negatives+ true negatives).
Diagnostic performance of radiomics models between benign and malignant focal hepatic lesions.
| Category | Training set (n=360) | Testing set (n=92) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95%CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | OA | AUC (95%CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | OA | |
| Benign group | 0.951 (0.92-0.99) | 0.875 | 0.875 | 0.875 | 0.89 | 0.899 (0.82-0.97) | 0.818 | 0.865 | 0.837 | 0.84 |
| Malignant group | 0.951 (0.92-0.99) | 0.875 | 0.875 | 0.875 | 0.899 (0.82-0.97) | 0.865 | 0.818 | 0.837 | ||
OA, overall accuracy; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 5ROC curves of SVM methods to classification (benign and malignant groups).
Figure 6The confusion matrix (benign and malignant groups). Label: overall accuracy (OA) = (true positives+ true negatives)/(true positives+ false positives+ false negatives+ true negatives).