Automatic texture-based analysis in ultrasound imaging of ovarian masses

Analysis of computer-aided diagnostics in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Different noninvasive imaging methods to predict the chance of malignancy of ovarian tumors are available. However, their predictive value is limited due to subjectivity of the reviewer. Therefore, more objective prediction models are needed. Computer-aided diagnostics (CAD) could be such a model, since it lacks bias that comes with currently used models. In this study, we evaluated the available data on CAD in predicting the chance of malignancy of ovarian tumors.

METHODS

We searched for all published studies investigating diagnostic accuracy of CAD based on ultrasound, CT and MRI in pre-surgical patients with an ovarian tumor compared to reference standards.

RESULTS

In thirty-one included studies, extracted features from three different imaging techniques were used in different mathematical models. All studies assessed CAD based on machine learning on ultrasound, CT scan and MRI scan images. Per imaging method, subsequently ultrasound, CT and MRI, sensitivities ranged from 40.3 to 100%; 84.6-100% and 66.7-100% and specificities ranged from 76.3-100%; 69-100% and 77.8-100%. Results could not be pooled, due to broad heterogeneity. Although the majority of studies report high performances, they are at considerable risk of overfitting due to the absence of an independent test set.

CONCLUSION

Based on this literature review, different CAD for ultrasound, CT scans and MRI scans seem promising to aid physicians in assessing ovarian tumors through their objective and potentially cost-effective character. However, performance should be evaluated per imaging technique. Prospective and larger datasets with external validation are desired to make their results generalizable.

Evaluating the added benefit of CT texture analysis on conventional CT analysis to differentiate benign ovarian cysts

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the benefit of adding CT texture analysis on conventional CT features of benign adnexal cystic lesions, especially in identifying mucinous cystadenoma.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent surgical removal of benign ovarian cysts (44 mucinous cystadenomas, 32 serous cystadenomas, 16 follicular/simple cysts and 43 endometriotic cysts) at our institution between January 2015 and November 2017. The CT images were independently reviewed by an abdominal radiologist (reviewer 1) and a resident (reviewer 2). Both reviewers recorded the conventional characteristics and performed texture analysis. Based on reviewer 1's results, two decision trees for differential diagnosis were developed. Reviewer 2's results were then applied to the decision trees. The diagnostic performances of each reviewer with and without the decision trees were compared.

RESULTS

Several conventional features and texture analysis parameters showed significant differences between mucinous cystadenomas and other benign adnexal cysts. The first decision tree selected septum number and thickness as significant features, whereas the second decision tree selected septum number and the mean values at spatial scaling factor (SSF) 0. Reviewer 1's performance did not change significantly with or without the use of the decision trees. Reviewer 2's interpretations were significantly less sensitive than reviewer 1's interpretations (p = 0.001). However, when aided by the first and second decision trees, Reviewer 2's interpretations were significantly more sensitive than reviewer 1's interpretations (86.4%, p < 0.001; 72.7%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests the benefit of CT texture analysis on conventional images to differentiate mucinous cystadenoma from other benign adnexal cysts, particularly for less experienced radiologists.

Quantification of heterogeneity as a biomarker in tumor imaging: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the reported performance of the described methods and identifies barriers to their implementation in clinical practice.

METHODOLOGY

The Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 20 September 2013. Heterogeneity analysis methods were classified into four categories, i.e., non-spatial methods (NSM), spatial grey level methods (SGLM), fractal analysis (FA) methods, and filters and transforms (F&T). The performance of the different methods was compared.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of the 7351 potentially relevant publications, 209 were included. Of these studies, 58% reported the use of NSM, 49% SGLM, 10% FA, and 28% F&T. Differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading and/or outcome prediction was the goal in 87% of the studies. Overall, the reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.87). No relation was found between the performance and the quantification methods used, or between the performance and the imaging modality. A negative correlation was found between the tumor-feature ratio and the AUC, which is presumably caused by overfitting in small datasets. Cross-validation was reported in 63% of the classification studies. Retrospective analyses were conducted in 57% of the studies without a clear description.

CONCLUSIONS

In a research setting, heterogeneity quantification methods can differentiate between tumor types, grade tumors, and predict outcome and monitor treatment effects. To translate these methods to clinical practice, more prospective studies are required that use external datasets for validation: these datasets should be made available to the community to facilitate the development of new and improved methods.