Intratumoral and peritumoral MRI-based radiomics for predicting extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis in epithelial ovarian cancer
Objectives To investigate the potential of intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics derived from T2-weighted MRI to preoperatively predict extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis (EPM) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods In this retrospective study, 488 patients from four centers were...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Insights into imaging 2024-11, Vol.15 (1), p.281-11, Article 281 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives
To investigate the potential of intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics derived from T2-weighted MRI to preoperatively predict extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis (EPM) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
Methods
In this retrospective study, 488 patients from four centers were enrolled and divided into training (
n
= 245), internal test (
n
= 105), and external test (
n
= 138) sets. Intratumoral and peritumoral models were constructed based on radiomics features extracted from the corresponding regions. A combined intratumoral and peritumoral model was developed via a feature-level fusion. An ensemble model was created by integrating this combined model with specific independent clinical predictors. The robustness and generalizability of these models were assessed using tenfold cross-validation and both internal and external testing. Model performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The Shapley Additive Explanation method was employed for model interpretation.
Results
The ensemble model showed superior performance across the tenfold cross-validation, with the highest mean AUC of 0.844 ± 0.063. On the internal test set, the peritumoral and ensemble models significantly outperformed the intratumoral model (AUC = 0.786 and 0.832 vs. 0.652,
p
= 0.007 and
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1869-4101 1869-4101 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s13244-024-01855-w |