4.6 Article

Characterization of Mediastinal Bulky Lymphomas with FDG-PET-Based Radiomics and Machine Learning Techniques

期刊

CANCERS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15071931

关键词

bulky lymphoma; diagnosis; textural analysis; machine learning; FDG-PET; radiomics; precision medicine; personalized treatment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT volumetric and texture parameters in the histological differentiation of mediastinal bulky lymphoma. The results support the use of metabolic heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker and the use of radiomic features for early characterization of mediastinal bulky lymphoma.
Background: This study tested the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT (FDG-PET) volumetric and texture parameters in the histological differentiation of mediastinal bulky disease due to classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) and grey zone lymphoma (GZL), using machine learning techniques. Methods: We reviewed 80 cHL, 29 PMBCL and 8 GZL adult patients with mediastinal bulky disease and histopathological diagnoses who underwent FDG-PET pre-treatment. Volumetric and radiomic parameters were measured using FDG-PET both for bulky lesions (BL) and for all lesions (AL) using LIFEx software (threshold SUV >= 2.5). Binary and multiclass classifications were performed with various machine learning techniques fed by a relevant subset of radiomic features. Results: The analysis showed significant differences between the lymphoma groups in terms of SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, TLG and several textural features of both first- and second-order grey level. Among machine learning classifiers, the tree-based ensembles achieved the best performance both for binary and multiclass classifications in histological differentiation. Conclusions: Our results support the value of metabolic heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker, and the use of radiomic features for early characterization of mediastinal bulky lymphoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据