nach oben

European Radiology

Erschienen in:

23.08.2019 | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Identification of suspicious invasive placentation based on clinical MRI data using textural features and automated machine learning

verfasst von: Huaiqiang Sun, Haibo Qu, Lu Chen, Wei Wang, Yi Liao, Ling Zou, Ziyi Zhou, Xiaodong Wang, Shu Zhou

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether intraplacental texture features from routine placental MRI can objectively and accurately predict invasive placentation.

Material and methods

This retrospective study includes 99 pregnant women with pathologically confirmed placental invasion and 56 pregnant women with simple placenta previa. All participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging after 24 gestational weeks. The placenta was segmented in sagittal images from both turbo spin echo (TSE) and balanced turbo field echo (bTFE) sequences. Textural features were extracted from the both original and Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG)-filtered MRI images. An automated machine learning algorithm was applied to the extracted feature sets to obtain the optimal preprocessing steps, classification algorithm, and corresponding hyper-parameters.

Results

A gradient boosting classifier using all textual features from original and LoG-filtered TSE images and bTFE images identified by the automated machine learning algorithm achieved the optimal performance with sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under ROC curve (AUC) of 100%, 88.5%, 95.2%, and 0.98 in the prediction of placental invasion. In addition, textural features that contributed to the prediction of placental invasion differ from the features significantly affected by normal placenta maturation.

Conclusions

Quantifying intraplacental heterogeneity using LoG filtration and texture analysis highlights the different heterogeneous appearance caused by abnormal placentation relative to normal maturation. The predictive model derived from automated machine learning yielded good performance, indicating the proposed radiomic analysis pipeline can accurately predict placental invasion and facilitate clinical decision-making for pregnant women with suspicious placental invasion.

Key Points

• The intraplacental texture features have high efficiency in prediction of invasive placentation after 24 gestational weeks.

• The features with dominated predictive power did not overlap with the features significantly affected by gestational age.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Oyelese Y, Smulian JC (2006) Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol 107:927–941. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000207559.15715.98 CrossRefPubMed

Garmi G, Salim R (2012) Epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and management of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol Int 2012:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/873929 CrossRef

Baughman WC, Corteville JE, Shah RR (2008) Placenta accreta: spectrum of US and MR imaging findings. Radiographics 28:1905–1916. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.287085060 CrossRefPubMed

Kocher MR, Sheafor DH, Bruner E et al (2017) Diagnosis of abnormally invasive posterior placentation: the role of MR imaging. Radiol Case Rep 12:295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2017.01.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Delli Pizzi A, Tavoletta A, Narciso R et al (2019) Prenatal planning of placenta previa: diagnostic accuracy of a novel MRI-based prediction model for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and clinical outcome. Abdom Radiol 44:1873–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1882-8 CrossRef

D’Antonio F, Iacovella C, Palacios-Jaraquemada J et al (2014) Prenatal identification of invasive placentation using magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13327 CrossRefPubMed

Alamo L, Anaye A, Rey J et al (2013) Detection of suspected placental invasion by MRI: do the results depend on observer’ experience? Eur J Radiol 82:e51–e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.08.022 CrossRefPubMed

Ueno Y, Kitajima K, Kawakami F et al (2014) Novel MRI finding for diagnosis of invasive placenta praevia: evaluation of findings for 65 patients using clinical and histopathological correlations. Eur Radiol 24:881–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3076-7 CrossRefPubMed

Lax A, Prince MR, Mennitt KW et al (2007) The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion. Magn Reson Imaging 25:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2006.10.007 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Langs G, Röhrich S, Hofmanninger J et al (2018) Machine learning: from radiomics to discovery and routine. Radiologe 58:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-018-0407-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Castellano G, Bonilha L, Li LM, Cendes F (2004) Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 59:1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.07.008 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Horowitz JM, Berggruen S, McCarthy RJ et al (2015) When timing is everything: are placental MRI examinations performed before 24 weeks’ gestational age reliable? Am J Roentgenol 205:685–692. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14134 CrossRef

15.

Wang G, Zuluaga MA, Pratt R et al (2016) Slic-Seg: a minimally interactive segmentation of the placenta from sparse and motion-corrupted fetal MRI in multiple views. Med Image Anal 34:137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.04.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C et al (2017) Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77:e104–e107. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Yip SSF, Aerts HJWL (2016) Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol 61:R150–R166. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/13/R150 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Fadl S, Moshiri M, Fligner CL et al (2017) Placental imaging: normal appearance with review of pathologic findings. Radiographics 37:979–998. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160155 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dukart J, Schroeter ML, Mueller K (2011) Age correction in dementia – matching to a healthy brain. PLoS One 6:e22193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022193 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Olson RS, Bartley N, Urbanowicz RJ, Moore JH (2016) Evaluation of a Tree-based Pipeline Optimization Tool for automating data science. Proc 2016 Genet Evol Comput Conf - GECCO ‘16 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1145/2908812.2908918

22.

Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 CrossRef

23.

Natekin A, Knoll A (2013) Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Front Neurorobot 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00021

24.

Wang S, Summers RM (2012) Machine learning and radiology. Med Image Anal 16:933–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2012.02.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J et al (2015) Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep 5:13087. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13087 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Larue RTHMHM, Defraene G, De Ruysscher D et al (2017) Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures. Br J Radiol 90:20160665. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160665 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Scheffler K, Lehnhardt S (2003) Principles and applications of balanced SSFP techniques. Eur Radiol 13:2409–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1957-x CrossRefPubMed

28.

Neycenssac F (1993) Contrast enhancement using the Laplacian-of-a-Gaussian filter. CVGIP Graph Model Image Process 55:447–463. https://doi.org/10.1006/cgip.1993.1034 CrossRef

29.

Rahaim NSA, Whitby EH (2015) The MRI features of placental adhesion disorder and their diagnostic significance: systematic review. Clin Radiol 70:917–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.04.010 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Tang X (1998) Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans Image Process 7:1602–1609. https://doi.org/10.1109/83.725367 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Blaicher W, Brugger PC, Mittermayer C et al (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging of the normal placenta. Eur J Radiol 57:256–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.025 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3:610–621. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309314 CrossRef

Titel: Identification of suspicious invasive placentation based on clinical MRI data using textural features and automated machine learning
verfasst von: Huaiqiang Sun
Haibo Qu
Lu Chen
Wei Wang
Yi Liao
Ling Zou
Ziyi Zhou
Xiaodong Wang
Shu Zhou
Publikationsdatum: 23.08.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06372-9

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Identification of suspicious invasive placentation based on clinical MRI data using textural features and automated machine learning