| Literature DB >> 36197274 |
Abstract
The aim of the study was to develop an optimal radiomics model based on abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for pre-operative differentiation of "early stage" adrenal metastases from lipid-poor adenomas (LPAs). This retrospective study included 188 patients who underwent abdominal CECT (training cohort: LPAs, 68; metastases, 64; validation cohort: LPAs, 29; metastases, 27). Abdominal CECT included plain, arterial, portal, and venous imaging. Clinical and CECT radiological features were assessed and significant features were selected. Radiomic features of the adrenal lesions were extracted from four-phase CECT images. Significant radiomics features were selected using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariable logistic regression. The clinical-radiological, unenhanced radiomics, arterial radiomics, portal radiomics, venous radiomics, combined radiomics, and clinical-radiological-radiomics models were established using a support vector machine (SVM). The DeLong test was used to compare the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of all models. The AUCs of the unenhanced (0.913), arterial (0.845), portal (0.803), and venous (0.905) radiomics models were all higher than those of the clinical-radiological model (0.788) in the testing dataset. The AUC of the combined radiomics model (incorporating plain and venous radiomics features) was further improved to 0.953, which was significantly higher than portal radiomics model (P = .033) and clinical-radiological model (P = .009), with the highest accuracy (89.13%) and a relatively stable sensitivity (91.67%) and specificity (86.36%). As the optimal model, the combined radiomics model based on biphasic CT images is effective enough to differentiate "early stage" adrenal metastases from LPAs by reducing the radiation dose.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36197274 PMCID: PMC9509040 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030856
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure. 1Flowchart shows the patient selection process, along with the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Clinical and radiological characteristics of the patients in the training and validation cohorts.
| Characteristics | Training cohort (n = 132) | Validation cohort (n = 56) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | LPAs | Metastasis (n = 64) | Total | LPAs | Metastasis (n = 27) | ||||
| Gender | .841 | .977 | .443 | ||||||
| Male | 67 (50.76) | 36 (52.94) | 35 (54.69) | 25 (44.64) | 13 (44.83) | 12 (44.44) | |||
| Female | 65 (49.24) | 32 (47.06) | 29 (45.31) | 31 (55.36) | 16 (55.17) | 15 (55.56) | |||
| Age (yr) | 60.91 ± 9.14 | 59.66 ± 9.85 | 62.05 ± 8.28 | .183 | 60.93 ± 8.39 | 60.73 ± 10.49 | 61.13 ± 5.83 | .879 | .990 |
| LD (cm) | 1.91 ± 0.75 | 1.90 ± 0.75 | 1.92 ± 0.74 | .893 | 1.83 ± 0.62 | 1.78 ± 0.63 | 1.88 ± 0.60 | .601 | .539 |
| SD (cm) | 1.54 ± 0.61 | 1.57 ± 0.61 | 1.52 ± 0.61 | .725 | 1.48 ± 0.51 | 1.40 ± 0.52 | 1.48 ± 0.50 | .986 | .541 |
| Lesion location | .305 | .945 | .232 | ||||||
| Right | 62 (46.97) | 29 (42.65) | 33 (51.56) | 21 (37.50) | 11 (37.93) | 10 (37.04) | |||
| Left | 70 (53.03) | 39 (57.35) | 31 (48.44) | 35 (62.50) | 18 (62.07) | 17 (62.96) | |||
| CT-pre (HU) | 33.69 ± 10.20 | 29.82 ± 9.70 | 37.2 ± 9.34 | <.001 | 34.37 ± 10.16 | 28.36 ± 10.05 | 39.88 ± 6.47 | <.001 | .707 |
| CT-a (HU) | 65.39 ± 17.13 | 68.90 ± 19.80 | 62.20 ± 13.51 | .051 | 64.85 ± 18.36 | 67.82 ± 21.28 | 62.13 ± 14.68 | .304 | .862 |
| CT-p (HU) | 77.61 ± 16.91 | 80.20 ± 16.51 | 72.25 ± 16.92 | .137 | 75.98 ± 16.39 | 78.68 ± 17.77 | 73.50 ± 14.58 | .295 | .585 |
| CT-v (HU) | 66.57 ± 15.68 | 61.62 ± 11.00 | 71.07 ± 17.79 | .001 | 65.22 ± 14.09 | 59.63 ± 13.45 | 70.33 ± 12.65 | .009 | .610 |
| Primary tumor pathology | |||||||||
| Lung | 39 | 16 | |||||||
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 5 | 2 | |||||||
| Gastric cancer | 7 | 1 | |||||||
| Colon | 6 | 2 | |||||||
| Pancreatic cancer | 3 | 2 | |||||||
| Esophageal cancer | 2 | 1 | |||||||
| Appendiceal cancer | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| Testicular carcinoma | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Breast | 1 | 2 | |||||||
Data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses.
CT-a = arterial-phase CT value, CT-p = portal-phase CT value, CT-pre = pre-enhanced CT value, CT-v = venous-phase CT value, HU = Hounsfield units, LD = long diameter, LPAs = lipid-poor adenomas, SD = short diameter.
P value < .05 indicates a significant difference between LPAs and metastasis in the training or validation cohort.
P* value < .05 indicates a significant difference between the training and validation cohorts.
Figure. 2Delineation of VOI and selection of radiomic features. (a) Delineation of intratumoral region in the unenhanced CT images. (b) Three dimensional VOI of adrenal mass. (c) LASSO coefficient profiles (y-axis) of the combined radiomics features. The lower x-axis indicated the log lambda (λ). The top x-axis has the average numbers of predictors. (d) 30 combined radiomics features were selected into the LASSO model by adjusting lambda to minimize the mean square error. LASSO = least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, VOI = volume of interest.
Performance of different models for differentiating LPAs from metastasis.
| Training cohort (n = 132) | Validation cohort (n = 56) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Machine learning (SVM) | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
| Clinical-radiological model | 0.797 | 89.09% | 62.00% | 70.48% | 0.788 | 87.50% | 59.09% | 69.57% |
| Unenhanced model | 0.982 | 98.18% | 92.00% | 93.33% | 0.913 | 87.50% | 86.36% | 82.61% |
| Arterial model | 0.985 | 90.91% | 98.00% | 94.29% | 0.845 | 83.53% | 86.36% | 84.78% |
| Portal model | 0.965 | 98.18% | 82.00% | 86.67% | 0.803 | 95.83% | 68.18% | 76.09% |
| Venous model | 0.971 | 94.55% | 94.00% | 93.33% | 0.905 | 83.33% | 90.91% | 86.96% |
| Combined radiomics model | 0.992 | 92.70% | 100.00% | 96.19% | 0.953 | 91.67% | 86.36% | 89.13% |
AUC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, CI = confidence interval, SVM = support vector machine.
Selected radiomics features in the unenhanced, arterial, portal, venous and combined radiomics models.
| The unenhanced model | The arterial model | The portal model | The venous model | The combined radiomics model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original_shape_ | Original_shape_ | Original_shape_ | Original_shape_ | |
| log-sigma-1-0-mm-3D_gldm_ DependenceEntropy | log-sigma-1-0-mm-3D_firstorder_Range | log-sigma-3-0-mm-3D_glszm_ | log-sigma-5-0-mm-3D_firstorder_ | |
| Wavelet-LLH_glcm_Idn | log-sigma-5-0-mm-3D_firstorder_ | log-sigma-4-0-mm-3D_gldm_SmallDependenceHighGrayLevelEmphasis | Wavelet-LLH_ | |
| Wavelet-LLH_gldm_ DependenceEntropy | Wavelet-LLH_ | log-sigma-4-0-mm-3D_glszm_ | Wavelet-HHL_ | |
| Wavelet-LHH_glszm_ SmallAreaLowGrayLevelEmphasis | Wavelet-LLH_glcm_Imc1 | log-sigma-5-0-mm-3D_glrlm_ShortRunEmphasis | Wavelet-LLL_ | |
| Wavelet-LLL_ | Wavelet-LLH_ | Wavelet-LLH_gldm_DependenceEntropy | ||
| Wavelet-LLH_glszm_ | Wavelet-LLH_ | |||
| Wavelet-LLL_glcm_ | ||||
The unenhanced radiomics;
The venous radiomics
Figure. 3Radiomics heatmaps. (a) Heatmap depicting correlation coefficients matrix of 6 selected features in the unenhanced radiomics model. (b) Heatmap depicting correlation coefficients matrix of 8 selected features in the arterial radiomics model. (c) Heatmap depicting correlation coefficients matrix of 7 selected features in the portal radiomics model. (d) Heatmap depicting correlation coefficients matrix of 5 selected features in the venous radiomics model. € Heatmap depicting correlation coefficients matrix of 9 selected features in the combined radiomics model.
Comparison of performance of the clinical and radiomics models in the validation cohort.
| Models | AUC | Z statistic |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined radiomics model vs Clinical-radiological model | 0.953 vs 0.788 | 2.622 | .009 |
| Combined radiomics model vs Unenhanced model | 0.953 vs 0.913 | 1.152 | .249 |
| Combined radiomics model vs Arterial model | 0.953 vs 0.845 | 1.693 | .090 |
| Combined radiomics model vs Portal model | 0.953 vs 0.803 | 2.127 | .033 |
| Combined radiomics model vs Venous model | 0.953 vs 0.905 | 1.457 | .145 |
| Unenhanced model vs Clinical-radiological model | 0.913 vs 0.788 | 1.596 | .111 |
| Unenhanced model vs Arterial model | 0.913 vs 0.845 | 1.015 | .310 |
| Unenhanced model vs Portal model | 0.913 vs 0.803 | 1.694 | .090 |
| Unenhanced model vs Venous model | 0.913 vs 0.905 | 0.161 | .872 |
| Arterial model vs Clinical-radiological model | 0.845 vs 0.788 | 0.608 | .543 |
| Arterial model vs Portal model | 0.845 vs 0.803 | 0.762 | .446 |
| Arterial model vs Venous model | 0.845 vs 0.905 | 0.917 | .359 |
| Portal model vs Clinical-radiological model | 0.803 vs 0.788 | 0.145 | .885 |
| Portal model vs Venous model | 0.803 vs 0.905 | 1.502 | .133 |
| Venous model vs Clinical-radiological model | 0.905 vs 0.788 | 1.543 | .123 |
AUC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure. 4ROCs of the clinical-radiological, unenhanced, arterial, portal, venous and combined radiomics models in the validation cohort using support vector machine (SVM).