nach oben

Erschienen in:

25.11.2021 | Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum

Machine learning based evaluation of clinical and pretreatment ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT radiomic features to predict prognosis of cervical cancer patients

verfasst von: Masatoyo Nakajo, Megumi Jinguji, Atsushi Tani, Erina Yano, Chin Khang Hoo, Daisuke Hirahara, Shinichi Togami, Hiroaki Kobayashi, Takashi Yoshiura

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the usefulness of machine learning to predict prognosis in cervical cancer using clinical and radiomic features of 2-deoxy-2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-D-glucose (¹⁸F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) (¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT).

Methods

This retrospective study included 50 cervical cancer patients who underwent ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT before treatment. Four clinical (age, histology, stage, and treatment) and 41 ¹⁸F-FDG-PET-based radiomic features were ranked and a subset of useful features for association with disease progression was selected based on decrease of the Gini impurity. Six machine learning algorithms (random forest, neural network, k-nearest neighbors, naive Bayes, logistic regression, and support vector machine) were compared using the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed using Cox regression analysis.

Results

The five top predictors of disease progression were: stage, surface area, metabolic tumor volume, gray-level run length non-uniformity (GLRLM_RLNU), and gray-level non-uniformity for run (GLRLM_GLNU). The naive Bayes model was the best-performing classifier for predicting disease progression (AUC = 0.872, accuracy = 0.780, F1 score = 0.781, precision = 0.788, and recall = 0.780). In the naive Bayes model, 5-year PFS was significantly higher in predicted non-progression than predicted progression (80.1% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001) and was only the independent factor for PFS in multivariate analysis (HR, 6.89; 95% CI, 1.92–24.69; p = 0.003).

Conclusion

A machine learning approach based on clinical and pretreatment ¹⁸F-FDG PET-based radiomic features may be useful for predicting tumor progression in cervical cancer patients.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–86.PubMedCrossRef

Wiebe E, Denny L, Thomas G (2012) Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 119:S100–109PubMedCrossRef

Rose PG, Java J, Whitney CW, et al (2015) Nomograms predicting progression-free survival, overall survival, and pelvic recurrence in locally advanced cervical cancer developed from an analysis of identifiable prognostic factors in patients from NRG oncology/Gynecologic oncology group randomized trials of chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 33:2136–2142PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474PubMedCrossRef

Herrera FG, Breuneval T, Prior JO, Bourhis J, Ozsahin M (2016) [18F] FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters as useful prognostic factors in cervical cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 11:43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577PubMedCrossRef

von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF (2006) Integrated PET/CT: Current applications and future directions. Radiology 238:405–422CrossRef

Yang F, Thomas MA, Dehdashti F, et al (2013) Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:716–727PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Ho KC, Fang YH, Chung HW, et al (2016) A preliminary investigation into textural features of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET for overall survival prognosis in patients with bulky cervical cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 6:166–175PubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Lucia F, Visvikis D, Desseroit MC, et al (2018) Prediction of outcome using pretreatment ¹⁸ F-FDG PET/CT and MRI radiomics in locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:768–786PubMedCrossRef

11.

Erickson BJ, Korfiatis P, Akkus Z, Kline TL (2017) Machine learning for medical imaging. Radiographics 37:505–515PubMedCrossRef

12.

Waljee AK, Higgins PD (2010) Machine learning in medicine: A primer for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol 105:1224–1226PubMedCrossRef

13.

Gao X, Chu C, Li Y, et al (2015) The method and efficacy of support vector machine classifiers based on texture features and multi-resolution histogram from (18)F-FDG PET-CT images for the evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Radiol 84:312–317PubMedCrossRef

14.

Ypsilantis PP, Siddique M, Sohn HM, et al (2015) Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with PET Imaging Using Convolutional Neural Networks. PLoS One 10:e0137036PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Ahn HK, Lee H, Kim SG, Hyun SH (2019) Pre-treatment ¹⁸F-FDG PET-based radiomics predict survival in resected non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Radiol 74:467–473PubMedCrossRef

16.

Shen WC, Chen SW, Wu KC, et al (2019) Prediction of local relapse and distant metastasis in patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy-treated cervical cancer by deep learning from [¹⁸F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Radiol 29:6741–6749.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, Cho YL, Lee YS (2015) Unabsorbed polylactide adhesion barrier mimicking recurrence of gynecologic malignant diseases with increased ¹⁸F-FDG uptake on PET/CT. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292:191–195PubMedCrossRef

18.

Nioche C, Orlhac F, Boughdad S, et al (2018) LIFEx: a freeware for radiomic feature calculation in multimodality imaging to accelerate advances in the characterization of tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Res 78:4786–4789PubMedCrossRef

19.

Brown PJ, Zhong J, Frood R, et al (2019) Prediction of outcome in anal squamous cell carcinoma using radiomic feature analysis of pre-treatment FDG PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2790–2799PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Johnson WE, Li C, Rabinovic A (2007) Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8:118–127PubMedCrossRef

21.

Orlhac F, Boughdad S, Philippe C, et al (2018) A postreconstruction harmonization method for multicenter radiomic studies in PET. J Nucl Med 59:1321–1328PubMedCrossRef

22.

FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology (2014) FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 125:97–98CrossRef

23.

Hyun SH, Ahn MS, Koh YW, Lee SJ (2019) A machine-learning approach using PET-based radiomics to predict the histological subtypes of lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 44:956–960PubMedCrossRef

24.

Sian H, Purnami SW (2015) Combine sampling support vector machine for imbalanced data classification. Procedia Computer Science 72:59–66CrossRef

25.

Xie Y, Jiang B, Gong E, et al (2019) Use of gradient boosting machine learning to predict patient outcome in acute ischemic stroke on the basis of imaging, demographic, and clinical information. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:44–51PubMedCrossRef

26.

Jung Y (2018) Multiple predicting K-fold cross-validation for model selection. J Nonparametr Stat 30:197–215CrossRef

27.

Cook JA, Ranstam J. Overfitting (2016) Br J Surg 103:1814.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Breiman L. Random forests (2001) Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRef

29.

Rahman R, Kodesh A, Levine SZ, Sandin S, Reichenberg A, Schlessinger A (2020) Identification of newborns at risk for autism using electronic medical records and machine learning. Eur Psychiatry 63:e22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

30.

Hotta M, Minamimoto R, Miwa K (2019). 11C-methionine-PET for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation necrosis: radiomics approach with random forest classifier. Sci Rep 9:15666PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Demsar J, Curk T, Erjavec A, et al (2013) Orange: data mining toolbox in Python. J Machine Learn Res 14:2349–2353

32.

DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1998) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845.CrossRef

33.

Lausen B, Schumacher M (1992) Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics 48:73-85CrossRef

34.

Galloway MM (1975) Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Graphics Image Process 4:172–179CrossRef

35.

Suzuki K, Yisong C (2018) Artificial intelligence in decision support systems for diagnosis in medical imaging [Internet] In: Suzuki K, Chen Y, editors Cham Springer International Publishing Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68843-5.

36.

Areeckal AS, Jayasheelan N, Kamath J, Zawadynski S, Kocher M, David S (2018) Early diagnosis of osteoporosis using radiogrammetry and texture analysis from hand and wrist radiographs in Indian population Osteoporos Int 29:665–673PubMedCrossRef

37.

Bollineni, VR, Ytre-Hauge S, Gulati A, et al (2018) The prognostic value of preoperative FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters in cervical cancer patients. European J Hybrid Imaging 2:24CrossRef

38.

Limkin EJ, Reuzé S, Carré A, et al (2019) The complexity of tumor shape, spiculatedness, correlates with tumor radiomic shape features. Sci Rep 9:4329PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Chaddad A, Desrosiers C, Toews M, Abdulkarim B (2017) Predicting survival time of lung cancer patients using radiomic analysis. Oncotarget. 8:104393–104407PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Mehta R, Cai K, Kumar N, et al (2017) A lesion-based response prediction model using pretherapy PET/CT image features for Y90 radioembolization to hepatic malignancies. Technol Cancer Res Treat 16:620–629PubMedCrossRef

41.

Uribe CF, Mathotaarachchi S, Gaudet V, et al (2019) Machine learning in nuclear medicine: part 1-introduction. J Nucl Med 60:451–458PubMedCrossRef

42.

Ngiam, KY Khor, IW (2019) Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery. Lancet Oncol 20:e262–273PubMedCrossRef

43.

Traverso A, Wee L, Dekker A, Gillies R (2018) Repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features: a systematic review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102:1143-1158PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Sanduleanu S, Woodruff HC, de Jong EEC, et al (2018) Tracking tumor biology with radiomics: a systematic review utilizing a radiomics quality score. Radiother Oncol 127:349-360PubMedCrossRef

45.

Cook GJR, Azad G, Owczarczyk K, Siddique M, Goh V (2018) Challenges and promises of PET radiomics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102:1083-1089PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

46.

Morin O, Vallières M, Jochems A, et al (2018) A deep look into the future of quantitative imaging in oncology: A statement of working principles and proposal for change. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102:1074–1082PubMedCrossRef

47.

Shiri I, Rahmim A, Ghaffarian P, Geramifar P, Abdollahi H, Bitarafan-Rajabi A (2017) The impact of image reconstruction settings on ¹⁸F-FDG PET radiomic features: multi-scanner phantom and patient studies. Eur Radiol 27:4498-4509.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Machine learning based evaluation of clinical and pretreatment 18F-FDG-PET/CT radiomic features to predict prognosis of cervical cancer patients
verfasst von: Masatoyo Nakajo
Megumi Jinguji
Atsushi Tani
Erina Yano
Chin Khang Hoo
Daisuke Hirahara
Shinichi Togami
Hiroaki Kobayashi
Takashi Yoshiura
Publikationsdatum: 25.11.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03350-y

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Machine learning based evaluation of clinical and pretreatment ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT radiomic features to predict prognosis of cervical cancer patients