Automatic PI-RADS assignment by means of formal methods

Setola

et al. 2023

Cancers

Self Cite

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the deadliest cancers, and it is responsible for a number of deaths almost equal to its incidence. The high mortality rate is correlated with several explanations; the main one is the late disease stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed. Since surgical resection has been recognised as the only curative treatment, a PC diagnosis at the initial stage is believed the main tool to improve survival. Therefore, patient stratification according to familial and genetic risk and the creation of screening protocol by using minimally invasive diagnostic tools would be appropriate. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are subsets of lesions which deserve special management to avoid overtreatment. The current PC screening programs are based on the annual employment of magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography sequences (MR/MRCP) and/or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). For patients unfit for MRI, computed tomography (CT) could be proposed, although CT results in lower detection rates, compared to MRI, for small lesions. The actual major limit is the incapacity to detect and characterize the pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) by EUS and MR/MRCP. The possibility of utilizing artificial intelligence models to evaluate higher-risk patients could favour the diagnosis of these entities, although more data are needed to support the real utility of these applications in the field of screening. For these motives, it would be appropriate to realize screening programs in research settings.

Section: Artificial Intelligence Radiomics and Pancreatic Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Assessment and Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence

Granata

Setola

et al. 2023

Cancers

Self Cite

“…The assessment of textural characteristics, obtained by radiological images, which depend on mathematical analysis, such as histogram analysis, is called radiomics [ 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 ]. This approach is captivating since it should allow to extract biological data from the radiological images [ 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 ] without an invasive approach, reducing costs and time and avoiding any risk for the patients. For several tumors, radiomic analyses have already provided an accurate evaluation of biology, allowing the identification of indices correlated with clinical outcomes [ 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 ].…”

Section: Common Postoperative Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Surgical Imaging Assessment in Rectal Cancer: Normal Findings and Complications

Muzio

Cutolo

et al. 2023

JCM

Rectal cancer (RC) is one of the deadliest malignancies worldwide. Surgery is the most common treatment for RC, performed in 63.2% of patients. The type of surgical approach chosen aims to achieve maximum residual function with the lowest risk of recurrence. The selection is made by a multidisciplinary team that assesses the characteristics of the patient and the tumor. Total mesorectal excision (TME), including both low anterior resection (LAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR), is still the standard of care for RC. Radical surgery is burdened by a 31% rate of major complications (Clavien–Dindo grade 3–4), such as anastomotic leaks and a risk of a permanent stoma. In recent years, less-invasive techniques, such as local excision, have been tested. These additional procedures could mitigate the morbidity of rectal resection, while providing acceptable oncologic results. The “watch and wait” approach is not a globally accepted model of care but encouraging results on selected groups of patients make it a promising strategy. In this plethora of treatments, the radiologist is called upon to distinguish a physiological from a pathological postoperative finding. The aim of this narrative review is to identify the main post-surgical complications and the most effective imaging techniques.

“…Therefore, that Radiomics could support cancer detection, diagnosis, evaluation of prognosis and response to treatment, so as could supervise disease status [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Using standard of care images that are usually obtained in a clinical setting, Radiomics analysis is a cost-effective and highly feasible implement for clinical decision support, providing prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers which enables a fast, low-cost, and repeatable tool for longitudinal monitoring [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Even though individual features may correlate with genomic data, so-called radiogenomics, or clinical outcomes, the impact of radiomics is increased when the data are processed using machine learning techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EOB-MR Based Radiomics Analysis to Assess Clinical Outcomes following Liver Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastases

Granata

Muzio

et al. 2022

Cancers

Self Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of radiomics features obtained by EOB-MRI phase in order to predict clinical outcomes following liver resection in Colorectal Liver Metastases Patients, and evaluate recurrence, mutational status, pathological characteristic (mucinous) and surgical resection margin. This retrospective analysis was approved by the local Ethical Committee board of National Cancer of Naples, IRCCS “Fondazione Pascale”. Radiological databases were interrogated from January 2018 to May 2021 in order to select patients with liver metastases with pathological proof and EOB-MRI study in pre-surgical setting. The cohort of patients included a training set (51 patients with 61 years of median age and 121 liver metastases) and an external validation set (30 patients with single lesion with 60 years of median age). For each segmented volume of interest by 2 expert radiologists, 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using PyRadiomics. non-parametric test, intraclass correlation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, linear regression modelling and pattern recognition methods (support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), artificial neural network (NNET), and decision tree (DT)) were considered. The best predictor to discriminate expansive versus infiltrative front of tumor growth was HLH_glcm_MaximumProbability extraxted on VIBE_FA30 with an accuracy of 84%, a sensitivity of 83%, and a specificity of 82%. The best predictor to discriminate tumor budding was Inverse Variance obtained by the original GLCM matrix extraxted on VIBE_FA30 with an accuracy of 89%, a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 65%. The best predictor to differentiate the mucinous type of tumor was the HHL_glszm_ZoneVariance extraxted on VIBE_FA30 with an accuracy of 85%, a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 95%. The best predictor to identify tumor recurrence was the LHL_glcm_Correlation extraxted on VIBE_FA30 with an accuracy of 86%, a sensitivity of 52% and a specificity of 97%. The best linear regression model was obtained in the identification of the tumor growth front considering the height textural significant metrics by VIBE_FA10 (an accuracy of 89%; sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 82%). Considering significant texture metrics tested with pattern recognition approaches, the best performance for each outcome was reached by a KNN in the identification of recurrence with the 3 textural significant features extracted by VIBE_FA10 (AUC of 91%, an accuracy of 93%; sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 77%). Ours results confirmed the capacity of radiomics to identify as biomarkers, several prognostic features that could affect the treatment choice in patients with liver metastases, in order to obtain a more personalized approach.