Advertisement

A CT-based radiomics nomogram for differentiation of renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat from homogeneous clear cell renal cell carcinoma

  • Pei Nie
  • Guangjie Yang
  • Zhenguang WangEmail author
  • Lei Yan
  • Wenjie Miao
  • Dapeng Hao
  • Jie Wu
  • Yujun Zhao
  • Aidi Gong
  • Jingjing Cui
  • Yan Jia
  • Haitao NiuEmail author
Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and validate a radiomics nomogram for preoperative differentiating renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat (AML.wovf) from homogeneous clear cell renal cell carcinoma (hm-ccRCC).

Methods

Ninety-nine patients with AML.wovf (n = 36) and hm-ccRCC (n = 63) were divided into a training set (n = 80) and a validation set (n = 19). Radiomics features were extracted from corticomedullary phase and nephrographic phase CT images. A radiomics signature was constructed and a radiomics score (Rad-score) was calculated. Demographics and CT findings were assessed to build a clinical factors model. Combined with the Rad-score and independent clinical factors, a radiomics nomogram was constructed. Nomogram performance was assessed with respect to calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness.

Results

Fourteen features were used to build the radiomics signature. The radiomics signature showed good discrimination in the training set (AUC [area under the curve], 0.879; 95%; confidence interval [CI], 0.793–0.966) and the validation set (AUC, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.643–1.000). The radiomics nomogram showed good calibration and discrimination in the training set (AUC, 0.896; 95% CI, 0.810–0.983) and the validation set (AUC, 0.949; 95% CI, 0.856–1.000) and showed better discrimination capability (p < 0.05) compared with the clinical factor model (AUC, 0.788; 95% CI, 0.683–0.893) in the training set. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the nomogram outperformed the clinical factors model and radiomics signature in terms of clinical usefulness.

Conclusions

The CT-based radiomics nomogram, a noninvasive preoperative prediction tool that incorporates the Rad-score and clinical factors, shows favorable predictive efficacy for differentiating AML.wovf from hm-ccRCC, which might assist clinicians in tailoring precise therapy.

Key Points

• Differential diagnosis between AML.wovf and hm-ccRCC is rather difficult by conventional imaging modalities.

• A radiomics nomogram integrated with the radiomics signature, demographics, and CT findings facilitates differentiation of AML.wovf from hm-ccRCC with improved diagnostic efficacy.

• The CT-based radiomics nomogram might spare unnecessary surgery for AML.wovf.

Keywords

Angiomyolipoma Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Tomography, X-ray computed Radiomics 

Abbreviations

3-D

Three-dimensional

AML

Angiomyolipoma

AML.wovf

AML without visible fat

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

AUC

Area under the curve

BMI

Body mass index

ccRCC

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

CI

Confidence interval

CMP

Corticomedullary phase

DCA

Decision curve analysis

EP

Excretory phase

GLCM

Gray level co-occurrence matrix

GLRLM

Gray level run length matrix

GLSZM

Gray level size zone matrix

Hm-ccRCC

Homogeneous ccRCC

ICC

Inter-/intra- class correlation coefficient

LASSO

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator

Nomo-score

Nomogram score

NP

Nephrographic phase

OR

Odds ratio

PACS

Picture archiving and communication system

PEC

Perivascular epithelioid cell

Rad-score

Radiomics score

ROC

Receiver operator characteristic

ROI

Region of interest

SVM

Support vector machine

Notes

Funding information

This study has received funding by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81701688 and 81601527); the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017BH096 and ZR2017MH036); the Key Research and Development Project of Shandong Province (2018GSF118078); and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (2018M642617). None of these funding sources had any role in study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Zhenguang Wang.

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

One of the authors (Guangjie Yang) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• case-control study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6427_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Lim RS, Flood TA, McInnes MDF, Lavallee LT, Schieda N (2018) Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI? Eur Radiol 28:542–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farrell C, Noyes SL, Tourojman M, Lane BR (2015) Renal angiomyolipoma: preoperative identification of atypical fat-poor AML. Curr Urol Rep 16:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schieda N, Kielar AZ, Al Dandan O, McInnes MD, Flood TA (2015) Ten uncommon and unusual variants of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): radiologic-pathologic correlation. Clin Radiol 70:206–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vos N, Oyen R (2018) Renal angiomyolipoma: the good, the bad, and the ugly. J Belg Soc Radiol 102:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thiravit S, Teerasamit W, Thiravit P (2018) The different faces of renal angiomyolipomas on radiologic imaging: a pictorial review. Br J Radiol 91:20170533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flum AS, Hamoui N, Said MA et al (2016) Update on the diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 195:834–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakim SW, Schieda N, Hodgdon T, McInnes MD, Dilauro M, Flood TA (2016) Angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat: ultrasound, CT and MR imaging features with pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 26:592–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li ZC, Zhai G, Zhang J et al (2018) Differentiation of clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas by all-relevant radiomics features from multiphase CT: a VHL mutation perspective. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5872-6
  9. 9.
    Shinagare AB, Krajewski KM, Braschi-Amirfarzan M, Ramaiya NH (2017) Advanced renal cell carcinoma: role of the radiologist in the era of precision medicine. Radiology 284:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park BK (2017) Renal angiomyolipoma: radiologic classification and imaging features according to the amount of fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:826–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takahashi N, Leng S, Kitajima K et al (2015) Small (< 4 cm) renal masses: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma using unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1194–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu Q, Li CX, Huang BJ, Xue LY, Wang WP (2015) Triphasic and epithelioid minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: qualitative and quantitative CEUS characteristics and distinguishing features. Abdom Imaging 40:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu Q, Wang W, Huang B, Li C, Li C (2012) Minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma: the initial study with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1896–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen LS, Zhu ZQ, Wang ZT et al (2018) Chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 28:1854–1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schieda N, Hodgdon T, El-Khodary M, Flood TA, McInnes MD (2014) Unenhanced CT for the diagnosis of minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1236–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chaudhry HS, Davenport MS, Nieman CM, Ho LM, Neville AM (2012) Histogram analysis of small solid renal masses: differentiating minimal fat angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shu J, Tang Y, Cui J et al (2018) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: CT-based radiomics features for the prediction of Fuhrman grade. Eur J Radiol 109:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ding J, Xing Z, Jiang Z et al (2018) CT-based radiomic model predicts high grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 103:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kocak B, Yardimci AH, Bektas CT et al (2018) Textural differences between renal cell carcinoma subtypes: machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis with independent external validation. Eur J Radiol 107:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Varghese BA, Chen F, Hwang DH et al (2018) Differentiation of predominantly solid enhancing lipid-poor renal cell masses by use of contrast-enhanced CT: evaluating the role of texture in tumour subtyping. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:W288–W296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kunapuli G, Varghese BA, Ganapathy P et al (2018) A decision-support tool for renal mass classification. J Digit Imaging 31:929–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feng Z, Rong P, Cao P et al (2018) Machine learning-based quantitative texture analysis of CT images of small renal masses: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 28:1625–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yan L, Liu Z, Wang G et al (2015) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma by texture analysis on CT images. Acad Radiol 22:1115–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haider MA, Vosough A, Khalvati F, Kiss A, Ganeshan B, Bjarnason GA (2017) CT texture analysis: a potential tool for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Cancer Imaging 17:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 350:g7594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang CW, Shen SH, Chang YH et al (2013) Are there useful CT features to differentiate renal cell carcinoma from lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1017–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hodgdon T, McInnes MD, Schieda N, Flood TA, Lamb L, Thornhill RE (2015) Can quantitative CT texture analysis be used to differentiate fat-poor renal angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma on unenhanced CT images? Radiology 276:787–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee HS, Hong H, Jung DC, Park S, Kim J (2017) Differentiation of fat-poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma in contrast-enhanced MDCT images using quantitative feature classification. Med Phys 44:3604–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ng F, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Goh V (2013) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? Eur J Radiol 82:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology DepartmentThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityQingdaoChina
  2. 2.PET-CT CenterThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityQingdaoChina
  3. 3.Pathology DepartmentThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityQingdaoChina
  4. 4.Huiying Medical Technology Co., LtdBeijingChina
  5. 5.Urology DepartmentThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations