Haidi LU1, Fu Shen1, Yuwei Xia2, and Jianping Lu1
1Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China, 2Huiying Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
Synopsis
Manual delineation of volume of interest (VOI) is widely used in
current radiomics analysis, suffering from high variability. The purpose of our study was to investigate the effects of delineation
of VOIs on radiomics analysis for the preoperative T staging based on
high-resolution T2WI.
The result demonstrated that differences in delineation of VOIs
affected radiomics analysis, the minimum contour method has better stability in
extracting features and the maximum contour method has better diagnostic
efficiency in patients with rectal cancer.
Introduction
Recent studies have shown that radiomics analysis has important
values in identifying tumor heterogeneity and can add a further dimension to
the predictive power of imaging. Segmentation of lesions occupy an
important role, as the volume of interest (VOI) is directly used to extract radiomics
features. The goal of this study was to explore the influence of different
manual segmentation methods of rectal cancer lesions on the stability of
feature extraction and the diagnostic efficiency of preoperative T staging
based on high-resolution T2WI.Methods
The data of rectal cancer patients confirmed by postoperative
pathology and examined by 3.0T MR T2 weighted imaging (T2WI) before surgery in
our hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively,
and included in the training set and test set respectively in chronological
order. According to the pathological results, stage T1-2 patients were
classified as a group of non-breakthrough the muscularis propria layer, while
stage T3-4 patients were classified as the breakthrough group. Two different
methods, minimum contour method (Model 1) and maximum contour method (Model 2),
were used to manually segment the volume of interest of lesions (VOI). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of all features was calculated and
compared. The features with ICC greater than 0.8 are selected, then least
absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm was used for
dimension reduction, and the features were selected which were valuable for
pathological T staging. The machine learning model of multilayer perceptron
(MLP) was established in the training set and verified in the test set, and
receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) of the two methods were drawn,
respectively calculated the area under the curve (AUC), then compared the
difference with DeLong test.Results
A total of 317 patients were included, including 152 cases in
training set and 165 cases in test set. The median ICC of Model 1 and Model 2
was 0.994 and 0.977 respectively, and the number of features with ICC less than
0.8 was 121 (8.59%) and 136 (9.65%), respectively (Fig.1), with significant difference
between the two groups (P<0.001). In the test set, the AUC (95%CI) of
Model 1 was 0.838 (0.911-0.999), and the AUC (95%CI) of Model 2 was 0.928
(0.931-1.000)(Fig.2). There was significant difference between the two groups (P=0.036). Discussion and Conclusion
Our study demonstrated that the two
different methods of segmentation in high-resolution T2WI based-MLP model have
good diagnostic value for preoperative T staging of rectal cancer, among which
the minimum contour method has better stability in extracting features and the
maximum contour method has better diagnostic efficiency.Acknowledgements
NAReferences
[1] Robert JG, Paul EK, Hedvig H, et al. Radiomics: image are more than
pictures, they are data[J]. Radiology. 2016; 278(2):563-577.
[2] Wu J, Tha KK, Xing L, et al. Radiomics and radiogenomics for precision
radiotherapy[J]. J Radiat Res. 2018; 59(suppl_1): i25-i31.
[3] Horvat N, Veeraraghavan H, Khan M, et al. MR Imaging of Rectal Cancer:
Radiomics Analysis to Assess Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy[J].
Radiology. 2018; 287(3):833-843.
[4] Zhang X, Zhong L, Zhang B, et al. The effects of volume of interest
delineation on MRI-based radiomics analysis: evaluation with two disease groups[J].
Cancer Imaging. 2019;19(1):89.