Fully Automated Versions of Clinically Validated Nephrometry Scores Demonstrate Superior Predictive Utility versus Human Scores.

artificial intelligence kidney imaging machine learning nephrometry score renal mass

Journal

BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Feb 2024
Historique:
medline: 12 2 2024
pubmed: 12 2 2024
entrez: 12 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To automate the generation of three validated nephrometry scoring systems on preoperative computerised tomography (CT) scans by developing artificial intelligence (AI)-based image processing methods. Subsequently, we aimed to evaluate the ability of these scores to predict meaningful pathological and perioperative outcomes. A total of 300 patients with preoperative CT with early arterial contrast phase were identified from a cohort of 544 consecutive patients undergoing surgical extirpation for suspected renal cancer. A deep neural network approach was used to automatically segment kidneys and tumours, and then geometric algorithms were used to measure the components of the concordance index (C-Index), Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical classification of renal tumours (PADUA), and tumour contact surface area (CSA) nephrometry scores. Human scores were independently calculated by medical personnel blinded to the AI scores. AI and human score agreement was assessed using linear regression and predictive abilities for meaningful outcomes were assessed using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. The median (interquartile range) age was 60 (51-68) years, and 40% were female. The median tumour size was 4.2 cm and 91.3% had malignant tumours. In all, 27% of the tumours were high stage, 37% high grade, and 63% of the patients underwent partial nephrectomy. There was significant agreement between human and AI scores on linear regression analyses (R ranged from 0.574 to 0.828, all P < 0.001). The AI-generated scores were equivalent or superior to human-generated scores for all examined outcomes including high-grade histology, high-stage tumour, indolent tumour, pathological tumour necrosis, and radical nephrectomy (vs partial nephrectomy) surgical approach. Fully automated AI-generated C-Index, PADUA, and tumour CSA nephrometry scores are similar to human-generated scores and predict a wide variety of meaningful outcomes. Once validated, our results suggest that AI-generated nephrometry scores could be delivered automatically from a preoperative CT scan to a clinician and patient at the point of care to aid in decision making.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38343198
doi: 10.1111/bju.16276
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01CA225435
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2024 BJU International.

Références

Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumour size, location and depth. J Urol 2009; 182: 844-853
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 786-793
Weight CJ, Atwell TD, Fazzio RT et al. A multidisciplinary evaluation of inter-reviewer agreement of the nephrometry score and the prediction of long-term outcomes. J Urol 2011; 186: 1223-1228
Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL et al. Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL nephrometry score. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 241-248
Chapin BF, Wood CG. The RENAL nephrometry nomogram: statistically significant, but is it clinically relevant? Eur Urol 2011; 60: 249-252
Spaliviero M, Poon BY, Aras O et al. Interobserver variability of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA, and centrality index nephrometry score systems. World J Urol 2015; 33: 853-858
Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1347-1358
Beam AL, Kohane IS. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA 2018; 319: 1317-1318
LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature 2015; 521: 436-444
Kocak B, Yardimci AH, Bektas CT et al. Textural differences between renal cell carcinoma subtypes: machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis with independent external validation. Eur J Radiol 2018; 107: 149-157
Feng Z, Rong P, Cao P et al. Machine learning-based quantitative texture analysis of CT images of small renal masses: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 1625-1633
Sharma N, Zhang Z, Mir MC et al. Comparison of 2 computed tomography-based methods to estimate preoperative and postoperative renal parenchymal volume and correlation with functional changes after partial nephrectomy. Urology 2015; 86: 80-86
Heller N, Isensee F, Maier-Hein KH et al. The state of the art in kidney and kidney tumour segmentation in contrast-enhanced CT imaging: results of the KiTS19 challenge. Med Image Anal 2021; 67: 101821
Heller N, Tejpaul R, Isensee F et al. Computer-generated R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores yield comparable predictive results to those of human-expert scores in predicting oncologic and perioperative outcomes [published correction appears in J Urol. 2022 Oct;208(4):939]. J Urol 2022; 207: 1105-1115
Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SAA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH. nnU-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods 2021; 18: 203-211
Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 2017; 77: e104-e107
Simmons MN, Ching CB, Samplaski MK, Park CH, Gill IS. Kidney tumour location measurement using the C index method. J Urol 2010; 183: 1708-1713
Leslie S, Gill IS, de Castro Abreu AL et al. Renal tumour contact surface area: a novel parameter for predicting complexity and outcomes of partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 884-893
Rasmussen R, Sanford T, Parwani AV, Pedrosa I. Artificial intelligence in kidney cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2022; 42: 1-11

Auteurs

Andrew M Wood (AM)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Nour Abdallah (N)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Nicholas Heller (N)

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Tarik Benidir (T)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Fabian Isensee (F)

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Resha Tejpaul (R)

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Chalairat Suk-Ouichai (C)

Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok City, Thailand.

Caleb Curry (C)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Alex You (A)

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Erick Remer (E)

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Samuel Haywood (S)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Steven Campbell (S)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos (N)

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Christopher Weight (C)

Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Classifications MeSH