Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
- Artificial intelligence (1)
- Diagnostic markers (1)
- Machine learning (1)
- Multiparametric MRI (1)
- Preclinical research (1)
- Predictive markers (1)
- Prognostic markers (1)
- Prostate cancer (1)
- Radiomics (1)
- Translational research (1)
Institut
- Informatik und Mathematik (2) (entfernen)
Our purpose was to analyze the robustness and reproducibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features. We constructed a multi-object fruit phantom to perform MRI acquisition as scan-rescan using a 3 Tesla MRI scanner. We applied T2-weighted (T2w) half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo (HASTE), T2w turbo spin-echo (TSE), T2w fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2 map and T1-weighted (T1w) TSE. Images were resampled to isotropic voxels. Fruits were segmented. The workflow was repeated by a second reader and the first reader after a pause of one month. We applied PyRadiomics to extract 107 radiomic features per fruit and sequence from seven feature classes. We calculated concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and dynamic range (DR) to obtain measurements of feature robustness. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. We calculated Gini scores to test the pairwise discriminative power specific for the features and MRI sequences. We depict Bland Altmann plots of features with top discriminative power (Mann–Whitney U test). Shape features were the most robust feature class. T2 map was the most robust imaging technique (robust features (rf), n = 84). HASTE sequence led to the least amount of rf (n = 20). Intra-observer ICC was excellent (≥ 0.75) for nearly all features (max–min; 99.1–97.2%). Deterioration of ICC values was seen in the inter-observer analyses (max–min; 88.7–81.1%). Complete robustness across all sequences was found for 8 features. Shape features and T2 map yielded the highest pairwise discriminative performance. Radiomics validity depends on the MRI sequence and feature class. T2 map seems to be the most promising imaging technique with the highest feature robustness, high intra-/inter-observer reproducibility and most promising discriminative power.
Objectives: To analyze the performance of radiological assessment categories and quantitative computational analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps using variant machine learning algorithms to differentiate clinically significant versus insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Retrospectively, 73 patients were included in the study. The patients (mean age, 66.3 ± 7.6 years) were examined with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to radical prostatectomy (n = 33) or targeted biopsy (n = 40). The index lesion was annotated in MRI ADC and the equivalent histologic slides according to the highest Gleason Grade Group (GrG). Volumes of interest (VOIs) were determined for each lesion and normal-appearing peripheral zone. VOIs were processed by radiomic analysis. For the classification of lesions according to their clinical significance (GrG ≥ 3), principal component (PC) analysis, univariate analysis (UA) with consecutive support vector machines, neural networks, and random forest analysis were performed. Results: PC analysis discriminated between benign and malignant prostate tissue. PC evaluation yielded no stratification of PCa lesions according to their clinical significance, but UA revealed differences in clinical assessment categories and radiomic features. We trained three classification models with fifteen feature subsets. We identified a subset of shape features which improved the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical assessment categories (maximum increase in diagnostic accuracy ΔAUC = + 0.05, p < 0.001) while also identifying combinations of features and models which reduced overall accuracy. Conclusions: The impact of radiomic features to differentiate PCa lesions according to their clinical significance remains controversial. It depends on feature selection and the employed machine learning algorithms. It can result in improvement or reduction of diagnostic performance.