| Literature DB >> 35685548 |
Hongzhang Zhou1,2, Rong Xu2,3, Haitao Mei2,3, Ling Zhang1,2, Qiyun Yu2,3, Rong Liu2,3, Bing Fan2,3.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application value of the radiomics method based on enhanced T1WI in glioma grading. Materials andEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685548 PMCID: PMC9159237 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3252574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Pract ISSN: 1368-5031 Impact factor: 3.149
Figure 1(a) LGG of the right temporal lobe (WHO grade II). (b) HGG of the right temporal lobe (WHO grade IV).
Figure 2Using the image processing software (ITK-SNAP), the area of interest was manually outlined on all levels of the brain glioma (grade II) in the enhanced T1WI, and the levels merged into a 3D area of interest (red).
Clinical and imaging features of patients with LGG and HGG.
| LGG ( | HGG ( | Test value |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 18/17 | 42/37 | 0.029a | 0.864 |
| Age (year) | 43 ± 10 | 60 ± 13 | −7.122t | ≤0.001 |
| Max diameter (cm) | 4.1 ± 1.3 | 3.9 ± 1.5 | 0.748t | 0.456 |
| Borders (indistinct/clear) | 31/4 | 61/18 | 2.008a | 0.156 |
| Intratumoral bleeding (yes/no) | 16/19 | 29/50 | 0.823a | 0.364 |
| Peritumoral edema (with/without or mild) | 25/10 | 48/31 | 1.199a | 0.274 |
| The enhancement level | 78.092a | ≤0.001 | ||
| No or light | 26 | 3 | ||
| Moderate | 9 | 11 | ||
| Severe | 0 | 65 |
t, t-test; achi square test.
Figure 3Screening radiomics features using LASSO regression. (a) LASSO regression uses cross-validation. The vertical dashed line on the left represents the log (λ) value corresponding to the best λ value. The selection standard was the minimum deviation value, i.e., −5.3. (b) The coefficients of texture parameters changing with λ. The vertical line corresponds to 9 features with nonzero coefficients selected using LASSO cross-validation.
Texture parameters and their corresponding coefficient values after dimensionality reduction.
| Feature parameter | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Histogram parameters | MeanDeviation | 2.95 |
| Quantile 0.025 | −0.51 | |
| MedianIntensity | 0.15 | |
| Kurtosis | 0.49 | |
|
| ||
| GLCM parameters | Correlation_angle0_offset1 | 0.53 |
| GLCMEntropy_AllDirection_offset4 | 0.51 | |
| GLCMEntropy_AllDirection_offset7 | 4.45 | |
|
| ||
| RLM parameters | LongRunEmphasis_angle0_offset1 | 0.65 |
| GLZSM parameters | GrayLevelNonuniformity_AllDirection_offset7 | −1.01 |
GLCM, gray-level co-occurrence matrix; RLM, run-length matrix; GLZSM, gray-level size zone matrix.
Diagnosis using the radiomics model in the training and test groups.
| AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training group | 0.950 (0.905–0.994) | 0.848 | 1.0 | 0.778 |
| Test group | 0.952 (0.871–1.000) | 0.939 | 0.9 | 0.956 |
Figure 4The comparison of LGG and HGG RAD scores in the training (a) and test groups (b). Labels 1 and 0 correspond to HGG and LGG, respectively.
Figure 5(a) For the training group (n = 80), the region of interest was used to evaluate the prediction model based on the enhanced T1WI, and the AUC value was 0.950. (b) According to the region of interest of the experimental group (n = 34), the prediction model based on the enhanced T1WI was evaluated, and the AUC value was 0.952.