Benjamin Leporq1, Amine Bouhamama2, Fabrice Lame2, Catherine Bihane2, Michael Sdika1, Jean-Yves Blay3, Frank Pilleul2, and Olivier Beuf4
1CREATIS CNRS UMR 5220; Inserm U1206; INSA-Lyon; UCBL Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France, 2Department of Radiology, Centre de lutte contre le cancer Léon Berard, Lyon, France, 3Department of Oncology, Centre de lutte contre le cancer Léon Berard, Lyon, France, 4CREATIS CNRS UMR 5220; Inserm U1206; INSA-Lyon; UCBL Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
Synopsis
In this study a MRI-based radiomic method was developed to predict lipomatous soft
tissue tumors malignancy. 81 subjects with lipomatous soft tissue tumors whose
histology was known and with fat-suppressed T1w contrast enhanced MR
images available were retrospectively enrolled to constitute a database. A
linear support vector machine was used after learning base dimension reduction
to develop the model. Results demonstrate that the
evaluation of lipomatous tumor malignancy is feasible with good diagnosis
performances using a routinely used MRI acquisition in clinical practice.
Introduction
Lipomatous soft tissue tumors can be either benign
(such as lipomas) or malignant (liposarcomas) (1,2). The diagnosis between benign lipoma and malignant
lipomatous soft tissue tumors is crucial since it directly drive the therapy strategy.
Histology is the gold standard for the
diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to the invasive aspect of biopsy and
its cost, there is a medical need in non-invasive methods to limit the number
of unnecessary biopsy. This challenge can be addressed using medical imaging,
which is used in routine clinical practice for cancer diagnosis and staging in
oncology. However, tumor heterogeneity introduces
a wide range of imaging appearance and reduces the
performance of conventional imaging features to distinguish between benign and
malignant forms of lipomatous tumors. The difficulty is particularly located
between lipomas and well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDL) or atypical
lipomatous tumors (ALT). It has been reported that MRI has a positive predictive
value of 47% in the diagnosis of ALT/WDL because of morphological overlap with
many benign lipoma variants [3]. Therefore, many
biopsies done for benign lesions could be avoided and more
specific methods are needed. The goal of this study
is to develop and validate a MRI-based radiomic method to predict soft tissue
tumors malignancy.Methods
81 subjects with lipomatous soft tissue tumors with histology and contrast-enhanced
T1w MR images available were retrospectively enrolled. Repartition
according to tumor histology was n = 40 lipomas and n = 41 WLD/ALT. MR images
were obtained from 56 different centers with non-uniform protocols.
Acquisitions were performed at 3 different fields (1.0T, 1.5T, and 3.0T) with
18 different MR systems commercialized by 4 vendors. In 65% of cases, images
were acquired with a 2D fast spin echo sequence (53.3% with a fat saturation
and 11.7% with a fat-water decomposition); in 4.9% of cases with a 3D isotropic
fast spin echo sequence and in 35% of cases with a 3D gradient echo sequence
(16.5% with a fat saturation and 13.6% with a fat-water decomposition). Mean
pixel size was 0.81² ± 0.29² mm² (range: 0.37² – 1.75² mm²).
Images were automatically loaded on an
in-house software developed on Matlab R2017a. The tumor was segmented manually
by two observers to evaluate the inter-observer reproducibility. Tumor mask was
next applied on fat-suppressed enhanced MR image and 87 radiomic features were
extracted. They included size, shape, intensity distribution, image domain
(based on GCLM, GLRLM, GLSZM and NGTDM matrices) and frequency domain (based on
Gabor filtering) textures features. (Fig.1)
The set of initial
features was reduced to decrease the risk of overfitting and create another set
of relevant features in term of relevancy and inter-observer reproducibility. This
procedure was achieved using a backward selection by a double thresholding on
t-test p-value (t < 0.1) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (t
> 0.8), beforehand computed in the reproducibility study. Next, a
classification model was built from a support vector machine with a linear
kernel. Before training, data were centered at their mean and scales to have
unit standard deviation. Support vector computation and hyperplane separation
was done using a sequential minimal optimization. Internal validation was
performed using a holdout cross-validation method (75% of data were used for
training and 25% for test).Results
For the whole set of radiomic features, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient was ranged between 0.27 and 0.99; mean: 0.81 ± 0.15.
Based on a 0.8 threshold on the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 63.2% of
radiomic features (55/87) were considered reproducible. Results for all
features families are summarized in Fig.2.
Based on t-test
p-value, 73.6% of features (64/87) were found relevant to be included in the
reduced feature set. Results stratified by feature family are summarized in
Fig.3. After combination with reproducibility criterion, the radiome was
finally reduced to 35 features (40.2%). To predict malignant tumors, model
diagnosis performances were: AUROC = 0.96; sensitivity = 100% (95% CI: 100 –
100%); specificity = 90% (95% CI: 71.4 – 108%); positive predictive value =
90.9% (95% CI: 73.9 – 108%); negative predictive value = 100% (95% CI: 100 –
100%) and overall accuracy = 95.0% (95% CI: 85.5 – 105%). Discussion
These results show that the evaluation of lipomatous
tumor malignancy is feasible using a routinely used MRI acquisition in clinical
practice. As suggested by the reproducibility study, the segmentation step may
introduce inherent inter-observer variability and this latter need to be taking
into account in the data mining. These encouraging results need to be further
confirmed on an external validation cohort. Acknowledgements
This work was performed within the framework of the
SIRIC LyriCAN grant INCa_INSERM_DGOS_12563 and LABEX PRIMES (ANR-11-LABX-0063),
program "Investissements d'Avenir" (ANR-11-IDEX-0007).References
(1)
Murphey M et al. Radiographics 2005; 25:1371-1395.
(2) O’Regan et al. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 97:37-43.
(3) Brisson
M et al. Skelet Radiol 2013; 42:635-647.