Application of enhanced computed tomography-based radiomics nomogram analysis to differentiate metastatic ovarian tumors from epithelial ovarian tumors

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the value of nomogram analysis based on conventional features and radiomics features of computed tomography (CT) venous phase to differentiate metastatic ovarian tumors (MOTs) from epithelial ovarian tumors (EOTs).

METHODS:

A dataset involving 286 patients pathologically confirmed with EOTs (training cohort: 133 cases, validation cohort: 68 cases) and MOTs (training cohort: 54 cases, validation cohort: 31 cases) is assembled in this study. Radiomics features are extracted from the venous phase of CT images. Logistic regression is employed to build models based on conventional features (model 1), radiomics features (model 2), and the combination of model 1 and model 2 (model 3). Diagnostic performance is assessed and compared. Additionally, a nomogram is plotted for model 3, and decision curve analysis is applied for clinical use.

RESULTS:

Age, abdominal metastasis, para-aortic lymph node metastasis, location, and septation are chosen to build Model 1. Ten optimal radiomics features are ultimately selected and radiomics score (rad-score) is calculated to build Model 2. Nomogram score is calculated to build model 3 that shows optimal diagnostic performance in both the training (AUC = 0.952) and validation cohorts (AUC = 0.720), followed by model 1 (AUC = 0.872 for training cohort and AUC = 0.709 for validation cohort) and model 2 (AUC = 0.833 for training cohort and AUC = 0.620 for validation cohort). Additionally, Model 3 achieves accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.893, 0.880, and 0.926 in the training cohort and 0.737, 0.853, and 0.613 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION:

Model 3 demonstrates the best diagnostic performance for preoperative differentiation of MOTs from EOTs. Thus, nomogram analysis based on Model 3 may be used as a biomarker to differentiate MOTs from EOTs.

Keywords

Radiomics ovarian tumors computed tomography metastasis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Torre

L.A.

, Trabert

, DeSantis

C.E.

et al., Ovarian cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin 68(4) (2018), 284–296.

Kubecek

, Laco

, Špaček

et al., The pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of metastatic tumors to the ovary: A comprehensive review, Clin Exp Metastasis 34(5) (2017), 295–307.

Lheureux

, Gourley

, Vergote

, Oza

A.M.

Epithelial ovarian cancer, Lancet 393(10177) (2019), 1240–1253.

Jayson

G.C.

, Kohn

E.C.

, Kitchener

H.C.

, Ledermann

J.A.

Ovarian cancer, Lancet 384(9951) (2014), 1376–1388.

Skírnisdóttir

, Garmo

, Holmberg

Non-genitaltract metastases to the ovaries presented as ovarian tumors inSweden-: Occurrence, origin and survival compared toovarian cancer, Gynecol Oncol 105(1) (2007), 166–171.

Brown

D.L.

, Zou

K.H.

, Tempany

C.M.

et al., Primary versus secondary ovarian malignancy: Imaging findings of adnexal masses in the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group Study, Radiology 219(1) (2001), 213–218.

Lambin

, Leijenaar

R.T.H.

et al., Radiomics: The bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine, Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(12) (2017), 749–762.

Yin

, Yang

, Tang

et al., Enhanced computed tomography radiomics-based machine learning methods for predicting the Fuhrman grades of renal clear cell carcinoma, J Xray Sci Technol 29(6) (2021), 1149–1160.

Jian

, Li

, Pickhardt

P.J.

et al., MR image-based radiomics to differentiate type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancers, Eur Radiol 31(1) (2021), 403–410.

10.

Qian

, Ren

, Liu

et al., MR imaging of epithelial ovarian cancer: A combined model to predict histologic subtypes, Eur Radiol 30(11) (2020), 5815–5825.

11.

Himoto

, Veeraraghavan

, Zheng

et al., Computed tomography-derived radiomic metrics can identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, JCO Precis Oncol 3 (2019), PO.19.00038..

12.

Danala

, Thai

, Gunderson

C.C.

et al., Applying quantitative CT image feature analysis to predict response of ovarian cancer patients to chemotherapy, Acad Radiol 24(10) (2017), 1233–1239.

13.

Wei

, Liu

, Rong

et al., A computed tomography-based radiomic prognostic marker of advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer recurrence: A multicenter study, Front Oncol 9 (2019), 255.

14.

Rizzo

, Botta

, Raimondi

et al., Radiomics of high-grade serous ovarian cancer: Association between quantitative CT features, residual tumour and disease progression within 12 months, Eur Radiol 28(11) (2018), 4849–4859.

15.

, Liu

, Xiong

et al., A radiomics approach for automated diagnosis of ovarian neoplasm malignancy in computed tomography, Sci Rep 11(1) (2021), 8730.

16.

Pan

, Ding

, Zhang

et al., A nomogram combined radiomic and semantic features as imaging biomarker for classification of ovarian cystadenomas, Front Oncol 10 (2020), 895.

17.

Karaosmanoglu

A.D.

, Onur

M.R.

, Salman

M.C.

et al., Imaging in secondary tumors of the ovary, Abdom Radiol 44(4) (2019), 1493–1505.

18.

Kato

M.K.

, Shida

, Yoneoka

et al., Novel classification of ovarian metastases originating from colorectal cancer by radiological imaging and macroscopic appearance, Int J Clin Oncol 25(9) (2020), 1663–1671.

19.

Koyama

, Mikami

, Saga

, Tamai

, Togashi

Secondary ovarian tumors: Spectrum of CT and MR features with pathologic correlation, Abdom Imaging 32(6) (2007), 784–795.

20.

Choi

H.J.

, Lee

J.H.

, Seo

S.S.

et al., Computed tomography findings of ovarian metastases from colon cancer: Comparison with primary malignant ovarian tumors, J Comput Assist Tomogr 29(1) (2005), 69–73.

21.

Mata

J.M.

, Inaraja

, Rams

et al., CT findings in metastatic ovarian tumors from gastrointestinal tract neoplasms (Krukenberg tumors), Gastrointest Radiol 13(3) (1988), 242–246.

22.

, Yang

, Zhang

MRI for discriminating metastatic ovarian tumors from primary epithelial ovarian cancers, J Ovarian Res 8 (2015), 61.

23.

Zhang

J.J.

, Cao

D.Y.

, Yang

J.X.

, Shen

Ovarian metastasis from nongynecologic primary sites: A retrospective analysis of 177 cases and 13-year experience, J Ovarian Res 13(1) (2020), 128.

24.

Zhang

, Mao

, Chen

et al. Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics in categorizing ovarian masses and predicting clinical outcome: A preliminary study, Eur Radiol 29(7) (2019), 3358–3371.

25.

X.P.

, Wang

, Yu

H.Y.

et al., Mdct-based radiomics features for the differentiation of serous borderline ovarian tumors and serous malignant ovarian tumors, Cancer Manag Res 13 (2021), 329–336.

26.

Rizzo

, Manganaro

, Dolciami

et al., Computed tomography based radiomics as a predictor of survival in ovarian cancer patients: A systematic review, Cancers (Basel) 13(3) (2021), 573.

27.

Davnall

, Yip

C.S.

, Ljungqvist

et al., Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: An emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 3(6) (2012), 573–589.

28.

Nougaret

, Tardieu

, Vargas

H.A.

et al., Ovarian cancer: An update on imaging in the era of radiomics, Diagn Interv Imaging 100(10) (2019), 647–655.

29.

Balachandran

V.P.

, Gonen

, Smith

J.J.

, DeMatteo

R.P.

Nomograms in oncology: More than meets the eye, Lancet Oncol 16(4) (2015), e173–e180.

30.

Sun

, Jin

, Zhang

et al., Preoperative prediction for Lauren type of gastric cancer: A radiomics nomogram analysis based on CT images and clinical features, J Xray Sci Technol 29(4) (2021), 675–686.

31.

Lee

C.K.

, Simes

R.J.

, Brown

et al., Prognostic nomogram to predict progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, Br J Cancer 105(8) (2011), 1144–1150.

32.

Weston

A.D.

, Korfiatis

, Kline

T.L.

et al., Automated abdominal segmentation of CT scans for body composition analysis using deep learning, Radiology 290(3) (2019), 669–679.