Cross-institutional evaluation of deep learning and radiomics models in predicting microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: validity, robustness, and ultrasound modality efficacy comparison.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Weibin Zhang, Qihui Guo, Yuli Zhu, Meng Wang, Tong Zhang, Guangwen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Hong Ding
{"title":"Cross-institutional evaluation of deep learning and radiomics models in predicting microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: validity, robustness, and ultrasound modality efficacy comparison.","authors":"Weibin Zhang, Qihui Guo, Yuli Zhu, Meng Wang, Tong Zhang, Guangwen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Hong Ding","doi":"10.1186/s40644-024-00790-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To conduct a head-to-head comparison between deep learning (DL) and radiomics models across institutions for predicting microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the model robustness and generalizability through rigorous internal and external validation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 2304 preoperative images of 576 HCC lesions from two centers, with MVI status determined by postoperative histopathology. We developed DL and radiomics models for predicting the presence of MVI using B-mode ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) at the arterial, portal, and delayed phases, and a combined modality (B + CEUS). For radiomics, we constructed models with enlarged vs. original regions of interest (ROIs). A cross-validation approach was performed by training models on one center's dataset and validating the other, and vice versa. This allowed assessment of the validity of different ultrasound modalities and the cross-center robustness of the models. The optimal model combined with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) was also validated. The head-to-head comparison was based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen DL models and 25 radiomics models using different ultrasound modalities were constructed and compared. B + CEUS was the optimal modality for both DL and radiomics models. The DL model achieved AUCs of 0.802-0.818 internally and 0.667-0.688 externally across the two centers, whereas radiomics achieved AUCs of 0.749-0.869 internally and 0.646-0.697 externally. The radiomics models showed overall improvement with enlarged ROIs (P < 0.05 for both CEUS and B + CEUS modalities). The DL models showed good cross-institutional robustness (P > 0.05 for all modalities, 1.6-2.1% differences in AUC for the optimal modality), whereas the radiomics models had relatively limited robustness across the two centers (12% drop-off in AUC for the optimal modality). Adding AFP improved the DL models (P < 0.05 externally) and well maintained the robustness, but did not benefit the radiomics model (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cross-institutional validation indicated that DL demonstrated better robustness than radiomics for preoperative MVI prediction in patients with HCC, representing a promising solution to non-standardized ultrasound examination procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":9548,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520182/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-024-00790-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a head-to-head comparison between deep learning (DL) and radiomics models across institutions for predicting microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the model robustness and generalizability through rigorous internal and external validation.

Methods: This retrospective study included 2304 preoperative images of 576 HCC lesions from two centers, with MVI status determined by postoperative histopathology. We developed DL and radiomics models for predicting the presence of MVI using B-mode ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) at the arterial, portal, and delayed phases, and a combined modality (B + CEUS). For radiomics, we constructed models with enlarged vs. original regions of interest (ROIs). A cross-validation approach was performed by training models on one center's dataset and validating the other, and vice versa. This allowed assessment of the validity of different ultrasound modalities and the cross-center robustness of the models. The optimal model combined with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) was also validated. The head-to-head comparison was based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results: Thirteen DL models and 25 radiomics models using different ultrasound modalities were constructed and compared. B + CEUS was the optimal modality for both DL and radiomics models. The DL model achieved AUCs of 0.802-0.818 internally and 0.667-0.688 externally across the two centers, whereas radiomics achieved AUCs of 0.749-0.869 internally and 0.646-0.697 externally. The radiomics models showed overall improvement with enlarged ROIs (P < 0.05 for both CEUS and B + CEUS modalities). The DL models showed good cross-institutional robustness (P > 0.05 for all modalities, 1.6-2.1% differences in AUC for the optimal modality), whereas the radiomics models had relatively limited robustness across the two centers (12% drop-off in AUC for the optimal modality). Adding AFP improved the DL models (P < 0.05 externally) and well maintained the robustness, but did not benefit the radiomics model (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Cross-institutional validation indicated that DL demonstrated better robustness than radiomics for preoperative MVI prediction in patients with HCC, representing a promising solution to non-standardized ultrasound examination procedures.

预测肝细胞癌微血管侵犯的深度学习和放射组学模型的跨机构评估:有效性、稳健性和超声模式疗效比较。
目的:在预测肝细胞癌(HCC)微血管侵犯(MVI)方面,对不同机构的深度学习(DL)模型和放射组学模型进行正面比较,并通过严格的内部和外部验证研究模型的稳健性和可推广性:这项回顾性研究包括来自两个中心的 576 个 HCC 病灶的 2304 张术前图像,MVI 状态由术后组织病理学确定。我们利用 B 型超声、造影剂增强超声(CEUS)的动脉期、门脉期和延迟期以及联合模式(B + CEUS)开发了 DL 和放射组学模型,用于预测是否存在 MVI。在放射组学方面,我们使用放大的感兴趣区(ROI)与原始感兴趣区(ROI)构建模型。我们采用交叉验证的方法,在一个中心的数据集上训练模型,然后验证另一个中心的数据集,反之亦然。这样就可以评估不同超声模式的有效性和模型的跨中心鲁棒性。结合甲胎蛋白(AFP)的最佳模型也得到了验证。头对头比较基于接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC):结果:构建并比较了使用不同超声模式的 13 个 DL 模型和 25 个放射组学模型。B + CEUS 是 DL 和放射组学模型的最佳模式。两个中心的 DL 模型内部 AUC 为 0.802-0.818,外部 AUC 为 0.667-0.688,而放射组学模型内部 AUC 为 0.749-0.869,外部 AUC 为 0.646-0.697。放射组学模型在扩大 ROI 后显示出整体改善(所有模式的 P 均为 0.05,最佳模式的 AUC 差异为 1.6-2.1%),而放射组学模型在两个中心的稳健性相对有限(最佳模式的 AUC 下降了 12%)。加入甲胎蛋白后,DL模型的稳健性有所提高(P 0.05):跨机构验证表明,在预测HCC患者术前MVI方面,DL比放射组学显示出更好的稳健性,是解决非标准化超声检查程序的一种可行方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Imaging
Cancer Imaging ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Imaging is an open access, peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles, reviews and editorials written by expert international radiologists working in oncology. The journal encompasses CT, MR, PET, ultrasound, radionuclide and multimodal imaging in all kinds of malignant tumours, plus new developments, techniques and innovations. Topics of interest include: Breast Imaging Chest Complications of treatment Ear, Nose & Throat Gastrointestinal Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Imaging biomarkers Interventional Lymphoma Measurement of tumour response Molecular functional imaging Musculoskeletal Neuro oncology Nuclear Medicine Paediatric.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信