4.5 Article

Considerable effects of imaging sequences, feature extraction, feature selection, and classifiers on radiomics-based prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 1836-1853

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-218

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); microvascular invasion (MVI); radiomics

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81971684, 81771908, 61973220]
  2. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2020A1515010571]
  3. Jiangxi provincial leading scholar program [20204BCJ22011]
  4. Guangzhou Science and Technology Planning Project [201903010073]
  5. Shenzhen University Top Ranking Project [860/000002100108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Imaging sequences, feature extraction and selection methods, and classifiers have a considerable impact on the predictive performance of radiomics models for hepatocellular carcinoma microvascular invasion.
Background: Microvascular invasion (MVI) has a significant effect on the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but its preoperative identification is challenging. Radiomics features extracted from medical images, such as magnetic resonance (MR) images, can be used to predict MVI. In this study, we explored the effects of different imaging sequences, feature extraction and selection methods, and classifiers on the performance of HCC MVI predictive models. Methods: After screening against the inclusion criteria, 69 patients with HCC and preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images were enrolled. In total, 167 features were extracted from the MR images of each sequence for each patient. Experiments were designed to investigate the effects of imaging sequence, number of gray levels (Ng), quantization algorithm, feature selection method, and classifiers on the performance of radiomics biomarkers in the prediction of HCC MVI. We trained and tested these models using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV). Results: The radiomics model based on the images of the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) had better predictive performance than those based on the arterial phase (AP), portal venous phase (PVP), and pre-enhanced T1-weighted images [area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC)=0.792 vs. 0.641/0.634/0.620, P=0.041/0.021/0.010, respectively]. Compared with the equal-probability and Lloyd-Max algorithms, the radiomics features obtained using the Uniform quantization algorithm had a better performance (AUC=0.643/0.666 vs. 0.792, P=0.002/0.003, respectively). Among the values of 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128, the best predictive performance was achieved when the Ng was 64 (AUC =0.792 vs. 0.584/0.697/0.677/0.734, P<0.001/P=0.039/0.001/0.137, respectively). We used a two-stage feature selection method which combined the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and recursive feature elimination (RFE) gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), which achieved better stability than and outperformed LASSO, minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR), and support vector machine (SVM)-RFE (stability=0.967 vs. 0.837/0.623/0.390, respectively; AUC=0.850 vs. 0.792/0.713/0.699, P=0.142/0.007/0.003, respectively). The model based on the radiomics features of HBP images using the GBDT classifier showed a better performance for the preoperative prediction of MVI compared with logistic regression (LR), SVM, and random forest (RF) classifiers (AUC=0.895 vs. 0.850/0.834/0.884, P=0.558/0.229/0.058, respectively). With the optimal combination of these factors, we established the best model, which had an AUC of 0.895, accuracy of 87.0%, specificity of 82.5%, and sensitivity of 93.1%. Conclusions: Imaging sequences, feature extraction and selection methods, and classifiers can have a considerable effect on the predictive performance of radiomics models for HCC MVI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available