| Literature DB >> 35574405 |
Binhao Zhang1, Huangqi Zhang1, Xin Li1, Shengze Jin2, Jiawen Yang1, Wenting Pan1, Xue Dong3, Jin Chen1, Wenbin Ji1.
Abstract
Background: It is difficult for radiologists to differentiate adrenal lipid-poor adenomas from non-adenomas; nevertheless, this differentiation is important as the clinical interventions required are different for adrenal lipid-poor adenomas and non-adenomas. Purpose: To develop an unenhanced computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics model for identifying adrenal lipid-poor adenomas to assist in clinical decision-making. Materials and methods: Patients with adrenal lesions who underwent CT between January 2015 and August 2021 were retrospectively recruited from two independent institutions. Patients from institution 1 were randomly divided into training and test sets, while those from institution 2 were used as the external validation set. The unenhanced attenuation and tumor diameter were measured to build a conventional model. Radiomics features were extracted from unenhanced CT images, and selected features were used to build a radiomics model. A nomogram model combining the conventional and radiomic features was also constructed. All the models were developed in the training set and validated in the test and external validation sets. The diagnostic performance of the models for identifying adrenal lipid-poor adenomas was compared.Entities:
Keywords: adrenal adenoma; adrenal gland neoplasms; computed tomography; diagnosis; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35574405 PMCID: PMC9102986 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.888778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Flowchart of sample inclusion and exclusion in this study.
Clinical and imaging characteristics of Institution 1.
| Variable | Training set | Test set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adrenal nonadenomas (n=84) | Lipid-poor adrenal adenomas (n=84) | p-value | Adrenal nonadenomas (n=38) | Lipid-poor adrenal adenomas (n=34) | p-value | |
| Gender (%) | 0.23 | |||||
| female | 21 (25.0) | 54 (64.3) | < 0.001 | 17 (44.7) | 21 (61.8) | |
| male | 63 (75.0) | 30 (35.7) | 21 (55.3) | 13 (38.2) | ||
| Age* | 57.1 ± 11.8 | 51.1 ± 11.5 | < 0.001 | 58.8 ± 10.9 | 50.6 ± 11.7 | < 0.01 |
| BMI* | 23.4 ± 3.5 | 24.5 ± 2.7 | 0.04 | 23.1 ± 3.4 | 25.3 ± 3.5 | < 0.01 |
| Distribution | 0.09 | 0.95 | ||||
| unilateral | 61 (72.6) | 71 (84.5) | 30 (78.9) | 28 (82.4) | ||
| bilateral | 23 (27.4) | 13 (15.5) | 8 (21.1) | 6 (17.6) | ||
| Tumor | 34.1 ± 16.5 | 22.2 ± 7.9 | < 0.001 | 38.5 ± 19.8 | 20.6 ± 6.7 | < 0.001 |
| Unenhanced attenuation (HU)* | 37.9 ± 6.6 | 23.2 ± 8.9 | < 0.001 | 39.1 ± 9.1 | 26.1 ± 11 | < 0.001 |
| Radscore‡ | -1.7(-2.6, -0.8) | 2.1(0.6, 2.8) | < 0.001 | -2.3(-2.9, -1.0) | 1.1(0.2, 2.4) | < 0.001 |
Except where indicated, data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses. BMI, body mass index; HU, Hounsfield Unit.
*Data are means ± standard deviations.
‡Data are median and interquartile range (IQR).
Comparison of clinical and imaging characteristics between institution 1 and institution 2.
| Variable | Institution 1 | Institution 2 | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (%) | 0.90 | |||
| female | 113 (47.1) | 24 (46.2) | ||
| male | 127 (52.9) | 28 (53.8) | ||
| Age* | 54.5 ± 11.9 | 57.8 ± 14.6 | 0.08 | |
| BMI‡ | 23.8 (21.8, 26.2) | 23.3 (20.6, 25.7) | 0.18 | |
| Distribution (%) | 0.51 | |||
| unilateral | 190 (79.2) | 39 (75.0) | ||
| bilateral | 50 (20.8) | 13 (25.0) | ||
| Tumor diameter(mm)‡ | 24.0 (18.3, 34.0) | 27.0 (20.3, 38.8) | 0.29 | |
| Unenhanced attenuation (HU)‡ | 33.0 (22.0, 40.0) | 33.0 (25.0, 37.0) | 0.91 | |
| Radscore‡ | -0.3 (-1.8, 2.0) | -0.4 (-1.9, 1.4) | 0.70 | |
Except where indicated, data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses. BMI, body mass index; HU, Hounsfield Unit
*Data are means ± standard deviations.
‡Data are median and interquartile range (IQR).
Results of univariate and multivariate analysis for lipid-poor adrenal adenomas in the training set.
| Univariate logistic analysis | Multivariate logistic analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value |
| Gender (Male) | 0.19 (0.09-0.36) | <0.001 | 0.21 (0.08-0.56) | <0.01 |
| Age | 0.96 (0.93-0.98) | <0.01 | 0.94 (0.90-0.98) | 0.02 |
| BMI | 1.11 (1.01-1.22) | 0.04 | 1.01 (0.86-1.19) | 0.62 |
| Distribution (unilateral) | 0.49 (0.23-1.04) | 0.63 | ||
| Tumor diameter (per 1 mm) | 0.91 (0.88-0.95) | <0.001 | 0.23 (0.11-0.49) | <0.01 |
| Unenhanced attenuation (per 1 Hu) | 0.81 (0.76-0.86) | <0.001 | 0.86 (0.81-0.91) | <0.001 |
Figure 2Radiomics process based on adrenal lipid-poor adenomas and nonadenomas. (A) Feature extraction and (B) feature selection. ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; mRMR, minimal redundancy maximum relevance; ROI, region of interest; 3D, three-dimensional.
Figure 3Performance of conventional model, radiomics model and nomogram model in three datasets. There was no difference between the conventional and nomogram or radiomics models in identifying lipid-poor adenomas in any of the datasets (all p > 0.05). The diagnostic performance of the nomogram model was superior to that of the radiomics model only in the training set (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Radiomics nomogram for predicting lipid-poor adenomas (A). Calibration curves of the radiomics nomogram in the training set (B), test set (C) and external validation set (D). The calibration curves show calibration of the nomogram in terms of agreement between the predicted risk of lipid-poor adenomas and pathological findings. The closer the dotted line fit to the ideal line, the better the predictive accuracy of the nomogram.
Detailed diagnosis performance of models in all datasets.
| Model | Accuracy (95% CI) | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | Radiomics | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.87 |
| Conventional | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.85 | |
| Nomogram | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.93 | |
| Test set | Radiomics | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.80 |
| Conventional | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.80 | |
| Nomogram | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.87 | |
| External validation set | Radiomics | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.86 |
| Conventional | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.78 | |
| Nomogram | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.87 |
PPV, positive predict value; NPV, negative predict value.
The cutoff of radiomics model is -0.1155177, the cutoff of conventional model is 0.6482431, the cutoff of nomogram model is -0.6291612.
Figure 5Examples of the nomogram in clinical practice. (A) Axial unenhanced abdominal CT images in a 55-year-old woman with adrenal lipid-poor adenoma from external validation set. Figures illustrate the process of calculating the probability of adrenal lipid-poor adenoma using (B) radiomics nomogram and (C) conventional nomogram. (B) CT features were analyzed as follows: tumor diameter = 13 mm, unenhanced attenuation = 28 HU, radscore = 2.67. The total score is 168, which corresponds to an adenoma probability of about 0.99. (C) CT features were analyzed as follows: tumor diameter = 13 mm, unenhanced attenuation = 28 HU. The total score is 147, which corresponds to an adenoma probability of greater than 0.9.