Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Machine Learning-Based Quantitative Computed Tomography Texture Analysis for Prediction of Fuhrman Nuclear Grade
To evaluate the performance of quantitative computed tomography (CT) texture analysis using different machine learning (ML) classifiers for discriminating low and high nuclear grade clear cell renal cell carcinomas (cc-RCCs).
Materials and methods
This retrospective study included 53 patients with pathologically proven 54 cc-RCCs (31 low-grade [grade 1 or 2]; 23 high-grade [grade 3 or 4]). In one patient, two synchronous cc-RCCs were included in the analysis. Mean age was 57.5 years. Thirty-four (64.1%) patients were male and 19 were female (35.9%). Mean tumour size based on the maximum diameter was 57.4 mm (range, 16–145 mm). Forty patients underwent radical nephrectomy and 13 underwent partial nephrectomy. Following pre-processing steps, two-dimensional CT texture features were extracted using portal-phase contrast-enhanced CT. Reproducibility of texture features was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Nested cross-validation with a wrapper-based algorithm was used in feature selection and model optimisation. The ML classifiers were support vector machine (SVM), multilayer perceptron (MLP, a sort of neural network), naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbours, and random forest. The performance of the classifiers was compared by certain metrics.
Among 279 texture features, 241 features with an ICC equal to or higher than 0.80 (excellent reproducibility) were included in the further feature selection process. The best model was created using SVM. The selected subset of features for SVM included five co-occurrence matrix (ICC range, 0.885–0.998), three run-length matrix (ICC range, 0.889–0.992), one gradient (ICC = 0.998), and four Haar wavelet features (ICC range, 0.941–0.997). The overall accuracy, sensitivity (for detecting high-grade cc-RCCs), specificity (for detecting high-grade cc-RCCs), and overall area under the curve of the best model were 85.1%, 91.3%, 80.6%, and 0.860, respectively.
The ML-based CT texture analysis can be a useful and promising non-invasive method for prediction of low and high Fuhrman nuclear grade cc-RCCs.
• Based on the percutaneous biopsy literature, ML-based CT texture analysis has a comparable predictive performance with percutaneous biopsy.
• Highest predictive performance was obtained with use of the SVM.
• SVM correctly classified 85.1% of cc-RCCs in terms of nuclear grade, with an AUC of 0.860.
KeywordsClear cell renal cell carcinoma Artificial intelligence Multidetector computed tomography Machine learning Fuhrman nuclear grade
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Area under the curve
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Contrast-enhanced computed tomography
Intra-class correlation coefficient
Renal cell carcinoma
Receiver operating characteristic
Region of interest
Support vector machine
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Burak Kocak, MD.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Burak Kocak, MD, the second and corresponding author, has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• performed at one institution
- 1.Eble J, Sauter G, Epstein J, Sesterhenn I (2004) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. WHO Classification of Tumours. IARC Press, Lyon, France, pp 9–11Google Scholar
- 2.Znaor A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Laversanne M, Jemal A, Bray F (2015) International variations and trends in renal cell carcinoma incidence and mortality. Eur Urol 67:519–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.002
- 3.Gupta K, Miller JD, Li JZ, Russell MW, Charbonneau C (2008) Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. Cancer Treat Rev 34:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2007.12.001
- 4.Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20006
- 5.Lohse CM, Blute ML, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Cheville JC (2002) Comparison of standardized and nonstandardized nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma to predict outcome among 2,042 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 118:877–886. https://doi.org/10.1309/VLV6-BRTR-HY5B-H485
- 6.Minardi D, Lucarini G, Mazzucchelli R et al (2005) Prognostic role of Fuhrman grade and vascular endothelial growth factor in pT1a clear cell carcinoma in partial nephrectomy specimens. J Urol 174:1208–1212Google Scholar
- 7.Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663Google Scholar
- 15.Rosenkrantz AB, Niver BE, Fitzgerald EF, Babb JS, Chandarana H, Melamed J (2010) Utility of the apparent diffusion coefficient for distinguishing clear cell renal cell carcinoma of low and high nuclear grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W344–W351. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4688
- 16.Schieda N, Lim RS, Krishna S, McInnes MDF, Flood TA, Thornhill RE (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced CT analysis to differentiate low-grade from high-grade chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18874
- 25.Mannil M, Burgstaller JM, Thanabalasingam A et al (2018) Texture analysis of paraspinal musculature in MRI of the lumbar spine: analysis of the lumbar stenosis outcome study (LSOS) data. Skeletal Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-2919-3
- 28.Szczypinski PM, Strzelecki M, Materka A (2007) Mazda - a software for texture analysis. In: 2007 International Symposium on Information Technology Convergence (ISITC 2007). IEEE, pp 245–249Google Scholar
- 32.Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T et al (2015) Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores. Eur Radiol 25:2840–2850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3701-8 Google Scholar
- 35.Cawley GC, Talbot NLC (2010) On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J Mach Learn Res 11:2079–2107Google Scholar
- 44.Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2002) An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumour stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 168:2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000035885.91935.d5 Google Scholar
- 46.Abou Youssif T, Tanguay S (2009) Natural history and management of small renal masses. Curr Oncol 16(Suppl 1):S2–S7Google Scholar