A comparison of 2D and 3D magnetic resonance imaging-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics models for the prognostic prediction of endometrial cancer: a pilot study

Bibliographic Details
Title: A comparison of 2D and 3D magnetic resonance imaging-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics models for the prognostic prediction of endometrial cancer: a pilot study
Authors: Ruixin Yan, Siyuan Qin, Jiajia Xu, Weili Zhao, Peijin Xin, Xiaoying Xing, Ning Lang
Source: Cancer Imaging, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2024)
Publisher Information: BMC, 2024.
Publication Year: 2024
Collection: LCC:Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
LCC:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
Subject Terms: Magnetic resonance imaging, Endometrial cancer, Radiomics, Prognostic analysis, Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine, R895-920, Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, RC254-282
More Details: Abstract Background Accurate prognostic assessment is vital for the personalized treatment of endometrial cancer (EC). Although radiomics models have demonstrated prognostic potential in EC, the impact of region of interest (ROI) delineation strategies and the clinical significance of peritumoral features remain uncertain. Our study thereby aimed to explore the predictive performance of varying radiomics models for the prediction of LVSI, DMI, and disease stage in EC. Methods Patients with 174 histopathology-confirmed EC were retrospectively reviewed. ROIs were manually delineated using the 2D and 3D approach on T2-weighted MRI images. Six radiomics models involving intratumoral (2Dintra and 3Dintra), peritumoral (2Dperi and 3Dperi), and combined models (2Dintra + peri and 3Dintra + peri) were developed. Models were constructed using the logistic regression method with five-fold cross-validation. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was assessed, and was compared using the Delong’s test. Results No significant differences in AUC were observed between the 2Dintra and 3Dintra models, or the 2Dperi and 3Dperi models in all prediction tasks (P > 0.05). Significant difference was observed between the 3Dintra and 3Dperi models for LVSI (0.738 vs. 0.805) and DMI prediction (0.719 vs. 0.804). The 3Dintra + peri models demonstrated significantly better predictive performance in all 3 prediction tasks compared to the 3Dintra model in both the training and validation cohorts (P
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 1470-7330
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00743-2
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/242e6acbd1fe49ed948655feb72f7440
Accession Number: edsdoj.242e6acbd1fe49ed948655feb72f7440
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
More Details
ISSN:14707330
DOI:10.1186/s40644-024-00743-2
Published in:Cancer Imaging
Language:English