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

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.

[1]  M. Haider,et al.  CT texture analysis: a potential tool for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib , 2017, Cancer Imaging.

[2]  M. McInnes,et al.  Angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat: Ultrasound, CT and MR imaging features with pathological correlation , 2016, European Radiology.

[3]  Jiule Ding,et al.  CT-based radiomic model predicts high grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. , 2018, European journal of radiology.

[4]  M. McInnes,et al.  Unenhanced CT for the diagnosis of minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Ximing J. Yang,et al.  Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Renal Angiomyolipoma. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Zhichao Feng,et al.  Machine learning-based quantitative texture analysis of CT images of small renal masses: Differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma , 2018, European Radiology.

[7]  Matthew S Davenport,et al.  Histogram analysis of small solid renal masses: differentiating minimal fat angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Junmo Kim,et al.  Differentiation of fat‐poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma in contrast‐enhanced MDCT images using quantitative feature classification , 2017, Medical physics.

[9]  B. Lane,et al.  Renal Angiomyolipoma: Preoperative Identification of Atypical Fat-Poor AML , 2015, Current Urology Reports.

[10]  M. McInnes,et al.  Ten uncommon and unusual variants of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): radiologic-pathologic correlation. , 2015, Clinical radiology.

[11]  Wenping Wang,et al.  Triphasic and epithelioid minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: qualitative and quantitative CEUS characteristics and distinguishing features , 2015, Abdominal Imaging.

[12]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

[13]  O. Kilickesmez,et al.  Textural differences between renal cell carcinoma subtypes: Machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis with independent external validation. , 2018, European journal of radiology.

[14]  Zhong-Qiu Wang,et al.  Chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis , 2018, European Radiology.

[15]  Vicky Goh,et al.  Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? , 2013, European journal of radiology.

[16]  Lifen Yan,et al.  Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma by texture analysis on CT images. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[17]  Shu-Huei Shen,et al.  Are there useful CT features to differentiate renal cell carcinoma from lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma? , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  H. Yin,et al.  Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: CT-based radiomics features for the prediction of Fuhrman grade. , 2018, European journal of radiology.

[19]  Steven Y Cen,et al.  Differentiation of Predominantly Solid Enhancing Lipid-Poor Renal Cell Masses by Use of Contrast-Enhanced CT: Evaluating the Role of Texture in Tumor Subtyping. , 2018, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  M. McInnes,et al.  Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI? , 2018, European Radiology.

[21]  Guangtao Zhai,et al.  Differentiation of clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas by all-relevant radiomics features from multiphase CT: a VHL mutation perspective , 2018, European Radiology.

[22]  R. Oyen,et al.  Renal Angiomyolipoma: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly , 2018, Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology.

[23]  Shanigarn Thiravit,et al.  The different faces of renal angiomyolipomas on radiologic imaging: a pictorial review. , 2018, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  Nicola Schieda,et al.  Can Quantitative CT Texture Analysis be Used to Differentiate Fat-poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma on Unenhanced CT Images? , 2015, Radiology.

[25]  Byung Kwan Park,et al.  Renal Angiomyolipoma: Radiologic Classification and Imaging Features According to the Amount of Fat. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  Gautam Kunapuli,et al.  A Decision-Support Tool for Renal Mass Classification , 2018, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[27]  Wenping Wang,et al.  Minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma: the initial study with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. , 2012, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[28]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Small (< 4 cm) Renal Masses: Differentiation of Angiomyolipoma Without Visible Fat From Renal Cell Carcinoma Using Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced CT. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  A. Shinagare,et al.  Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Role of the Radiologist in the Era of Precision Medicine. , 2017, Radiology.

[30]  G. Collins,et al.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.