期刊文献+

增强CT模型及影像组学模型预测肾透明细胞癌WHO/ISUP分级 被引量:5

Enhanced CT model and radiomics model for predictingWHO/ISUP grade of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的比较增强CT模型与影像组学模型预测肾透明细胞癌(ccRCC)WHO/ISUP分级的效能。方法回顾性分析131例经病理确诊ccRCC患者,按照3∶2比例分层抽样分为训练集(n=78)和验证集(n=53)。根据2016版肾癌WHO/ISUP病理分级标准,以Ⅰ~Ⅱ级为低级别、Ⅲ~Ⅳ级为高级别ccRCC。训练集55例低级别、23例高级别ccRCC;验证集37例低级别、16例高级别ccRCC。以训练集构建增强CT模型及影像组学模型预测ccRCC级别,于验证集加以验证,比较其诊断效能。结果增强CT模型在训练集及验证集预测高、低级别ccRCC的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.89及0.76,敏感度分别0.83及0.56,特异度分别为0.84及0.87;影像组学模型的AUC分别为0.98及0.85,敏感度分别0.96及0.91,特异度分别为0.75及0.84。训练集中影像组学模型的AUC大于增强CT模型(Z=2.05,P<0.05),验证集中二者AUC差异无统计学意义(Z=0.95,P=0.34)。决策曲线分析结果显示高风险概率阈值为0.08~1.00时,影像组学模型净获益高于增强CT模型。结论影像组学模型预测ccRCC WHO/ISUP分级的效能优于增强CT模型。 Objective To compare the efficacy of enhanced CT model and radiomics model for predicting WHO/ISUP grade of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma(ccRCC).Methods Data of 131 patients with pathologically confirmed ccRCC were retrospectively analyzed.The patients were divided into training set(n=78)and validation set(n=53)using stratified sampling taken the ratio of 3∶2.According to the 2016 WHO/ISUP pathological grading standards of renal cancer,gradeⅠ-ⅡccRCC were classified as low grade whereasⅢ-Ⅳwere classified as high grade ccRCC.There were 55 cases of low grade and 23 of high grade ccRCC in the training set,37 of low grade and 16 of high grade ccRCC in the validation set.Enhanced CT model and radiomics model were constructed in training set to predict ccRCC grade,and were used in validation set.The area under the curve(AUC),the sensitivity and specificity were calculated,and the diagnostic efficiency were compared between two models.Results AUC of enhanced CT model in training set and validation set was 0.89 and 0.76,respectively,and the sensitivity was 0.83 and 0.56,the specificity was 0.84 and 0.87,respectively.AUC of radiomics model in training set and validation set was 0.98 and 0.85,respectively,the sensitivity was 0.96 and 0.91,and the specificity was 0.75 and 0.84,respectively.In training set,AUC of radiomics model was higher than that of the enhanced CT model(Z=2.05,P<0.05),while in validation set,there was no statistical difference of AUC between these two models(Z=0.95,P=0.34).Decision curve analysis showed that the net benefit of radiomics model was superior to that of enhanced CT model within the high risk probability threshold of 0.08-1.00.Conclusion Radiomics model was better than enhanced CT model for predicting WHO/ISUP grade of ccRCC.
作者 韩冬 于楠 张喜荣 吴宏培 任革 吕蕊花 李晨 贺太平 HAN Dong;YU Nan;ZHANG Xirong;WU Hongpei;REN Ge;LYU Ruihua;LI Chen;HE Taiping(Department of Radiology,Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine,Xianyang 712021,China;School of Medical Technology,Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine,Xianyang 712046,China;Department of Pathology,Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine,Xianyang 712021,China)
出处 《中国医学影像技术》 CSCD 北大核心 2021年第4期582-586,共5页 Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology
基金 陕西中医药大学学科创新团队建设项目(2019-YS04)。
关键词 肾细胞 肿瘤分级 体层摄影术 X线计算机 影像组学 carcinoma,renal cell neoplasm grading tomography,X-ray computed radiomics
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献25

  • 1Cherry Kim,Hyuck Jae Choi,Kyoung-Sik Cho.Diagnostic value of multidetector computed tomography for renal sinus fat invasion in renal cell carcinoma patients[J]. European Journal of Radiology . 2014 (6)
  • 2Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan,Ajay Morani,Harshad Ladha,Tharakeshwar Bathala,Hyunseon Kang,Shiva Gupta,Neeraj Lalwani,Vikas Kundra.Staging, surveillance, and evaluation of response to therapy in renal cell carcinoma: role of MDCT[J]. Abdominal Imaging . 2014 (1)
  • 3Hendrika J. Bekema,Steven MacLennan,Mari Imamura,Thomas B.L. Lam,Fiona Stewart,Neil Scott,Graeme MacLennan,Sam McClinton,T.R. Leyshon Griffiths,Andreas Skolarikos,Sara J. MacLennan,Richard Sylvester,B?rje Ljungberg,James N’Dow.Systematic Review of Adrenalectomy and Lymph Node Dissection in Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma[J]. European Urology . 2013
  • 4Phillip M. Pierorazio,Elias S. Hyams,Salina Tsai,Zhaoyong Feng,Bruce J. Trock,Jeffrey K. Mullins,Pamela T. Johnson,Elliot K. Fishman,Mohamad E. Allaf.Multiphasic Enhancement Patterns of Small Renal Masses (≤4 cm) on Preoperative Computed Tomography: Utility for Distinguishing Subtypes of Renal Cell Carcinoma, Angiomyolipoma, and Oncocytoma[J]. Urology . 2013 (6)
  • 5J. Ferlay,E. Steliarova-Foucher,J. Lortet-Tieulent,S. Rosso,J.W.W. Coebergh,H. Comber,D. Forman,F. Bray.Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012[J]. European Journal of Cancer . 2013 (6)
  • 6Y.-Y. Zhang,S. Luo,Y. Liu,R.-T. Xu.Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: Differentiation from papillary renal cell carcinoma by helical CT[J]. Clinical Radiology . 2012
  • 7Jared M. Whitson,Catherine R. Harris,Maxwell V. Meng.Population‐based comparative effectiveness of nephron‐sparing surgery vs ablation for small renal masses[J]. BJU International . 2012 (10)
  • 8Steven MacLennan,Mari Imamura,Marie C. Lapitan,Muhammad Imran Omar,Thomas B.L. Lam,Ana M. Hilvano-Cabungcal,Pam Royle,Fiona Stewart,Graeme MacLennan,Sara J. MacLennan,Steven E. Canfield,Sam McClinton,T.R. Leyshon Griffiths,B?rje Ljungberg,James N’Dow.Systematic Review of Oncological Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Localised Renal Cancer[J]. European Urology . 2012 (5)
  • 9Thomas A. Gardner,Temel Tirkes,Matthew Mellon,Michael O. Koch.Imaging Techniques for the Patient With Renal Cell Carcinoma[J]. Seminars in Nephrology . 2011 (3)
  • 10Michael A.S. Jewett,Kamal Mattar,Joan Basiuk,Christopher G. Morash,Stephen E. Pautler,D. Robert Siemens,Simon Tanguay,Ricardo A. Rendon,Martin E. Gleave,Darrel E. Drachenberg,Raymond Chow,Hannah Chung,Joseph L. Chin,Neil E. Fleshner,Andrew J. Evans,Brenda L. Gallie,Masoom A. Haider,John R. Kachura,Ghada Kurban,Kimberly Fernandes,Antonio Finelli.Active Surveillance of Small Renal Masses: Progression Patterns of Early Stage Kidney Cancer &lt;ce:link locator="eulogo1"/&gt;[J]. European Urology . 2011 (1)

共引文献61

同被引文献39

引证文献5

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部