European journal of radiology · 2019
Differentiating diffuse from focal pattern on Computed Tomography in multiple myeloma: Added value of a Radiomics approach.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tagliafico Alberto Stefano, Cea Michele, Rossi Federica, Valdora Francesca, Bignotti Bianca, Succio Giulia, Gualco Stefano, Conte Alessio, Dominietto Alida
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Focal pattern in multiple myeloma (MM) seems to be related to poorer survival and differentiation from diffuse to focal pattern on computed tomography (CT) has inter-reader variability. We postulated that a Radiomic approach could help radiologists in differentiating diffuse from focal patterns on CT.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed imaging data of 70 patients with MM with CT, PET-CT or MRI available before bone marrow transplant. Two general radiologist evaluated, in consensus, CT images to define a focal (at least one lytic lesion >5 mm in diameter) or a diffuse (lesions <5 mm, not osteoporosis) pattern. N = 104 Radiomics features were extracted and evaluated with an open source software.
RESULTS: The pathological group included: 22 diffuse and 39 focal patterns. After feature reduction, 9 features were different (p < 0.05) in the diffuse and focal patterns (n = 2/9 features were Shape-based: MajorAxisLength and Sphericity; n = 7/9 were Gray Level Run Length Matrix (Glrlm)). AUC of the Radiologists versus Reference Standard was 0.64 (95 % CI: (0.49-0.78) p = 0.20. AUC of the best 4 features (MajorAxisLength, Median, SizeZoneNonUniformity, ZoneEntropy) were: 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.58-0.88); 0.71 (95 % CI: 0.54-0.88); 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.66-0.92); 0.68 (95 % CI: 0.53-0.83) respectively.
CONCLUSION: A Radiomics approach improves radiological evaluation of focal and diffuse pattern of MM on CT.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed imaging data of 70 patients with MM with CT, PET-CT or MRI available before bone marrow transplant. Two general radiologist evaluated, in consensus, CT images to define a focal (at least one lytic lesion >5 mm in diameter) or a diffuse (lesions <5 mm, not osteoporosis) pattern. N = 104 Radiomics features were extracted and evaluated with an open source software.
RESULTS: The pathological group included: 22 diffuse and 39 focal patterns. After feature reduction, 9 features were different (p < 0.05) in the diffuse and focal patterns (n = 2/9 features were Shape-based: MajorAxisLength and Sphericity; n = 7/9 were Gray Level Run Length Matrix (Glrlm)). AUC of the Radiologists versus Reference Standard was 0.64 (95 % CI: (0.49-0.78) p = 0.20. AUC of the best 4 features (MajorAxisLength, Median, SizeZoneNonUniformity, ZoneEntropy) were: 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.58-0.88); 0.71 (95 % CI: 0.54-0.88); 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.66-0.92); 0.68 (95 % CI: 0.53-0.83) respectively.
CONCLUSION: A Radiomics approach improves radiological evaluation of focal and diffuse pattern of MM on CT.