Radiomics analysis of uterine tumors in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for prediction of lymph node metastases in endometrial carcinoma.
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Aged
Lymphatic Metastasis
/ diagnostic imaging
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Radiopharmaceuticals
Positron-Emission Tomography
/ methods
Endometrial Neoplasms
/ pathology
Lymph Nodes
/ diagnostic imaging
Uterine Neoplasms
/ pathology
Retrospective Studies
18F-FDG PET/CT
Endometrial carcinoma
lymph node metastasis
radiomics
Journal
Turkish journal of medical sciences
ISSN: 1303-6165
Titre abrégé: Turk J Med Sci
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9441758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
29
01
2021
accepted:
27
02
2022
entrez:
3
11
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In this single-center study, we aimed to analyze texture features of primary uterine lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT to predict lymph node metastases. Totally, 157 (mean age: 62 ± 10.2 years) patients were included in the analysis. Histopathological examination results were considered as the standard reference for nodal involvement. On 18F-FDG PET/CT images, only the primary tumor was segmented. SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV, and TLG of primary uterine lesions were calculated for analyses. For texture analysis first, second, and higher-order texture features were calculated. Mean diameter of primary uterine lesions was calculated as 35± 18.1 mm. Lymph node metastases were detected in 19% of patients in histopathological examination of surgical materials. While 26 patients had pelvic lymph node metastases, 19 patients had additional paraaortic lymph node metastases. On radiomics analysis for 20 features, a significant difference was found between patients with and without lymph node metastasis. With using data mining methods GLZLM ZLNU, EntropyGLCM, Entropyhisto, GLRLM LRHGE, GLZLM HGZE, GLZLM SZHGE, GLRLM HGRE, GLRLM SRHGE were found significant radiomics features to predict lymph node metastasis with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.8. The radiomics analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity is a promising method for improving triage of the patients for lymph node dissection in endometrial carcinoma.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In this single-center study, we aimed to analyze texture features of primary uterine lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT to predict lymph node metastases.
METHODS
METHODS
Totally, 157 (mean age: 62 ± 10.2 years) patients were included in the analysis. Histopathological examination results were considered as the standard reference for nodal involvement. On 18F-FDG PET/CT images, only the primary tumor was segmented. SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV, and TLG of primary uterine lesions were calculated for analyses. For texture analysis first, second, and higher-order texture features were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean diameter of primary uterine lesions was calculated as 35± 18.1 mm. Lymph node metastases were detected in 19% of patients in histopathological examination of surgical materials. While 26 patients had pelvic lymph node metastases, 19 patients had additional paraaortic lymph node metastases. On radiomics analysis for 20 features, a significant difference was found between patients with and without lymph node metastasis. With using data mining methods GLZLM ZLNU, EntropyGLCM, Entropyhisto, GLRLM LRHGE, GLZLM HGZE, GLZLM SZHGE, GLRLM HGRE, GLRLM SRHGE were found significant radiomics features to predict lymph node metastasis with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.8.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The radiomics analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity is a promising method for improving triage of the patients for lymph node dissection in endometrial carcinoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36326312
doi: 10.55730/1300-0144.5371
pmc: PMC10390124
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
762-769Références
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Jan;20(1):110-5
pubmed: 20130510
Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36
pubmed: 19070889
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul 25;2019:2641627
pubmed: 31427906
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2010;2010:181963
pubmed: 20613992
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jun;299(6):1667-1672
pubmed: 30927059
EJNMMI Res. 2018 Aug 22;8(1):86
pubmed: 30136163
Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jun;52(3):170-189
pubmed: 29942396
Nucl Med Commun. 2019 Jul;40(7):764-772
pubmed: 30925542
J Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;58(3):365-366
pubmed: 27811126
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1141-9
pubmed: 20966700
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Mar;30(3):378-382
pubmed: 32079712
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Aug;130(2):306-11
pubmed: 23707673
Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Dec;44(12):956-960
pubmed: 31689276
Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Oct;40(10):780-5
pubmed: 26053711
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Oct;123(1):82-7
pubmed: 21764107
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Mar;48(4):441-6
pubmed: 22257792
CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Jan-Feb;55(1):10-30
pubmed: 15661684
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127(1):5-10
pubmed: 22771890
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8
pubmed: 18304622
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018 Mar 28;19(4):201-205
pubmed: 29588264