Prediction of clear cell renal cell carcinoma ≤ 4cm: visual assessment of ultrasound characteristics versus ultrasonographic radiomics analysis
Fan Yang,Dai Zhang,Li-Hui Zhao,Yi-Ran Mao,Jie Mu,Hai-Ling Wang,Liang Pang,Shi-Qiang Yang,Xi Wei,Chun-Wei Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1298710
2024-07-23
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, and comprehensive model based on ultrasonographic radiomics for the differentiation of small clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC) and Renal Angiomyolipoma (RAML). Methods: The clinical, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced CT(CECT) imaging data of 302 small renal tumors (maximum diameter ≤ 4cm) patients in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from June 2018 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, with 182 patients of ccRCC and 120 patients of RAML. The ultrasound images of the largest diameter of renal tumors were manually segmented by ITK-SNAP software, and Pyradiomics (v3.0.1) module in Python 3.8.7 was applied to extract ultrasonographic radiomics features from ROI segmented images. The patients were randomly divided into training and internal validation cohorts in the ratio of 7:3. The Random Forest algorithm of the Sklearn module was applied to construct the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, and comprehensive model. The efficacy of the prediction models was verified in an independent external validation cohort consisting of 69 patients, from 230 small renal tumor patients in two different institutions. The Delong test compared the predictive ability of three models and CECT. Calibration Curve and clinical Decision Curve Analysis were applied to evaluate the model and determine the net benefit to patients. Results: 491 ultrasonographic radiomics features were extracted from 302 small renal tumor patients, and 9 ultrasonographic radiomics features were finally retained for modeling after regression and dimensionality reduction. In the internal validation cohort, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, comprehensive model, and CECT were 0.75, 76.7%, 60.0%, 70.0%; 0.80, 85.6%, 61.7%, 76.0%; 0.88, 90.6%, 76.7%, 85.0% and 0.90, 92.6%, 88.9%, 91.1%, respectively. In the external validation cohort, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the three models and CECT were 0.73, 67.5%, 69.1%, 68.3%; 0.89, 86.7%, 80.0%, 83.5%; 0.90, 85.0%, 85.5%, 85.2% and 0.91, 94.6%, 88.3%, 91.3%, respectively. The DeLong test showed no significant difference between the clinical ultrasound imaging model and the ultrasonographic radiomics model (Z=-1.287, P=0.198). The comprehensive model showed superior diagnostic performance than the ultrasonographic radiomics model (Z=4. 394, P<0.001) and the clinical ultrasound imaging model (Z=4. 732, P<0.001). Moreover, there was no significant difference in AUC between the comprehensive model and CECT (Z=-0.252, P=0.801). Both in the internal and external validation cohort, the Calibration Curve and Decision Curve Analysis showed a better performance of the comprehensive model. Conclusion: It is feasible to construct an ultrasonographic radiomics model for distinguishing small ccRCC and RAML based on ultrasound images, and the diagnostic performance of the comprehensive model is superior to the clinical ultrasound imaging model and ultrasonographic radiomics model, similar to that of CECT.