CT-Based Radiomics Analysis to Predict Histopathological Outcomes Following Liver Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastases.
computed tomography
liver metastases
prediction of histopathological outcomes
radiomics analysis
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Mar 2022
24 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
10
01
2022
revised:
17
03
2022
accepted:
21
03
2022
entrez:
12
4
2022
pubmed:
13
4
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We aimed to assess the efficacy of radiomic features extracted by computed tomography (CT) in predicting histopathological outcomes following liver resection in colorectal liver metastases patients, evaluating recurrence, mutational status, histopathological characteristics (mucinous), and surgical resection margin. This retrospectively approved study included a training set and an external validation set. The internal training set included 49 patients with a median age of 60 years and 119 liver colorectal metastases. The validation cohort consisted of 28 patients with single liver colorectal metastasis and a median age of 61 years. Radiomic features were extracted using PyRadiomics on CT portal phase. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests, intraclass correlation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, linear regression modeling, and pattern recognition methods (support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), artificial neural network (NNET), and decision tree (DT)) were considered. The median value of intraclass correlation coefficients for the features was 0.92 (range 0.87-0.96). The best performance in discriminating expansive versus infiltrative front of tumor growth was wavelet_HHL_glcm_Imc2, with an accuracy of 79%, a sensitivity of 84%, and a specificity of 67%. The best performance in discriminating expansive versus tumor budding was wavelet_LLL_firstorder_Mean, with an accuracy of 86%, a sensitivity of 91%, and a specificity of 65%. The best performance in differentiating the mucinous type of tumor was original_firstorder_RobustMeanAbsoluteDeviation, with an accuracy of 88%, a sensitivity of 42%, and a specificity of 100%. The best performance in identifying tumor recurrence was the wavelet_HLH_glcm_Idmn, with an accuracy of 85%, a sensitivity of 81%, and a specificity of 88%. The best linear regression model was obtained with the identification of recurrence considering the linear combination of the 16 significant textural metrics (accuracy of 97%, sensitivity of 94%, and specificity of 98%). The best performance for each outcome was reached using KNN as a classifier with an accuracy greater than 86% in the training and validation sets for each classification problem; the best results were obtained with the identification of tumor front growth considering the seven significant textural features (accuracy of 97%, sensitivity of 90%, and specificity of 100%). This study confirmed the capacity of radiomics data to identify several prognostic features that may affect the treatment choice in patients with liver metastases, in order to obtain a more personalized approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35406419
pii: cancers14071648
doi: 10.3390/cancers14071648
pmc: PMC8996874
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Radiol Med. 2021 Mar;126(3):437-444
pubmed: 33025303
Radiol Med. 2020 Sep;125(9):904-905
pubmed: 32193869
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 22;11(1):
pubmed: 35011771
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 21;12(10):
pubmed: 33096795
Front Oncol. 2021 Sep 07;11:709339
pubmed: 34557410
Radiol Med. 2021 Mar;126(3):421-429
pubmed: 32833198
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Sep 1;112(9):902-912
pubmed: 32016387
Radiol Med. 2019 Sep;124(9):877-886
pubmed: 31172448
Liver Int. 2020 Sep;40(9):2050-2063
pubmed: 32515148
Eur Radiol Exp. 2020 Nov 10;4(1):62
pubmed: 33169295
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):754-762
pubmed: 32193870
Radiol Med. 2021 Jul;126(7):998-1006
pubmed: 33861421
Radiol Med. 2020 May;125(5):465-473
pubmed: 32048155
Radiol Med. 2020 Dec;125(12):1233-1242
pubmed: 32424659
J Med Biol Eng. 2016;36(4):449-459
pubmed: 27656117
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Oct;85(10):1867-1874
pubmed: 27666629
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;24(9):2482-2490
pubmed: 28560599
Radiol Med. 2021 Dec;126(12):1571-1583
pubmed: 34865190
Radiol Med. 2020 Dec;125(12):1288-1300
pubmed: 32415476
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338
pubmed: 32154773
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):697-705
pubmed: 32200455
Acta Radiol. 2019 Sep;60(9):1084-1093
pubmed: 30612433
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Aug 26;12(9):
pubmed: 32858990
Radiol Med. 2020 Dec;125(12):1216-1224
pubmed: 32410063
Eur J Radiol. 2018 May;102:15-21
pubmed: 29685529
Radiol Med. 2021 Feb;126(2):323-333
pubmed: 32594427
Radiol Med. 2020 Jun;125(6):522-530
pubmed: 32020526
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Apr;113:101-109
pubmed: 30927933
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Oct;40(7):2331-7
pubmed: 25968046
World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Dec 12;19(1):344
pubmed: 34895260
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 25;13(3):
pubmed: 33504085
Radiol Med. 2020 Jan;125(1):15-23
pubmed: 31587182
Radiol Med. 2021 Aug 12;:
pubmed: 34386897
Int J Cancer. 2020 Dec 1;147(11):3215-3223
pubmed: 32875550
Radiol Med. 2020 Oct;125(10):951-960
pubmed: 32306201
Radiol Med. 2020 Nov;125(11):1024-1039
pubmed: 32930945
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Aug 07;13(16):
pubmed: 34439148
Radiol Med. 2020 Oct;125(10):990-998
pubmed: 32277332
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jun 26;13(13):
pubmed: 34206858
Front Oncol. 2019 Mar 05;9:102
pubmed: 30891425
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 05;13(21):
pubmed: 34771709
Front Oncol. 2019 Mar 19;9:148
pubmed: 30941301
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Jan;44(1):65-71
pubmed: 29967982
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Aug;46(8):3674-3685
pubmed: 33891149
Infect Agent Cancer. 2021 Mar 16;16(1):19
pubmed: 33726798
Radiol Med. 2021 Oct;126(10):1296-1311
pubmed: 34213702
Acad Radiol. 2007 Dec;14(12):1520-30
pubmed: 18035281
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jul;29(7):3595-3605
pubmed: 30770969
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 13;10(11):e0142876
pubmed: 26566221