Advertisement

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis by dual-energy CT texture analysis with machine learning

  • Reza ForghaniEmail author
  • Avishek Chatterjee
  • Caroline Reinhold
  • Almudena Pérez-Lara
  • Griselda Romero-Sanchez
  • Yoshiko Ueno
  • Maryam Bayat
  • James W. M. Alexander
  • Lynda Kadi
  • Jeffrey Chankowsky
  • Jan Seuntjens
  • Behzad Forghani
Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Objectives

This study was conducted in order to evaluate a novel risk stratification model using dual-energy CT (DECT) texture analysis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with machine learning to (1) predict associated cervical lymphadenopathy and (2) compare the accuracy of spectral versus single-energy (65 keV) texture evaluation for endpoint prediction.

Methods

Eighty-seven patients with HNSCC were evaluated. Texture feature extraction was performed on virtual monochromatic images (VMIs) at 65 keV alone or different sets of multi-energy VMIs ranging from 40 to 140 keV, in addition to iodine material decomposition maps and other clinical information. Random forests (RF) models were constructed for outcome prediction with internal cross-validation in addition to the use of separate randomly selected training (70%) and testing (30%) sets. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were determined for predicting positive versus negative nodal status in the neck.

Results

Depending on the model used and subset of patients evaluated, an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of up to 88, 100, 67, 83, and 100%, respectively, could be achieved using multi-energy texture analysis. Texture evaluation of VMIs at 65 keV alone or in combination with only iodine maps had a much lower accuracy.

Conclusions

Multi-energy DECT texture analysis of HNSCC is superior to texture analysis of 65 keV VMIs and iodine maps alone and can be used to predict cervical nodal metastases with relatively high accuracy, providing information not currently available by expert evaluation of the primary tumor alone.

Key Points

• Texture features of HNSCC tumor are predictive of nodal status.

• Multi-energy texture analysis is superior to analysis of datasets at a single energy.

• Dual-energy CT texture analysis with machine learning can enhance noninvasive diagnostic tumor evaluation.

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography Machine learning Artificial intelligence Head and neck neoplasms Computer-assisted diagnosis 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the receiver operating curve

CI

Confidence intervals

DECT

Dual-energy CT

HNSCC

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

NPV

Negative predictive value

PPV

Positive predictive value

RF

Random forests

ROI

Region of interest

VMI

Virtual monochromatic image

Notes

Funding

This work was partly supported by a grant from the Rossy Cancer Network. R.F. is a clinical research scholar supported by the FRQS (Fonds de recherche en santé du Québec).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is R. Forghani.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: R.F. has acted as consultant and speaker for GE Healthcare and is a founding partner and stockholder of 4Intel Inc. B.F. is a founding partner and stockholder of 4Intel Inc.

Statistics and biometry

B.F. has significant statistical and informatics expertise and performed the mathematical and statistical analyses.

Informed consent

Ethics approval was obtained by the Institutional Review Board of the Jewish General Hospital (CIUSSS West-Central Montreal).

Ethical approval

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Methodology

• retrospective

• experimental

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6159_MOESM1_ESM.docx (49 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Som PM, Brandwein-Gensler MS (2011) Lymph nodes of the neck. In: Som PM, Curtin HD (eds) Head and neck imaging. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forghani R, Yu E, Levental M, Som PM, Curtin HD (2014) Imaging evaluation of lymphadenopathy and patterns of lymph node spread in head and neck cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2015.978862:1-18
  3. 3.
    Kostakoglu L (2011) PET/CT Imaging. In: Som PM, Curtin HD (eds) Head and neck imaging. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Kapre N et al (2015) Elective versus therapeutic neck dissection in node-negative oral cancer. N Engl J Med 373:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abu-Ghanem S, Yehuda M, Carmel NN et al (2016) Elective neck dissection vs observation in early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue with no clinically apparent lymph node metastasis in the neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paleri V, Urbano TG, Mehanna H et al (2016) Management of neck metastases in head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 130:S161–S169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liao LJ, Hsu WL, Wang CT, Lo WC, Lai MS (2016) Analysis of sentinel node biopsy combined with other diagnostic tools in staging cN0 head and neck cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Head Neck 38:628–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medina JE (2017) Cancer of the neck. In: Myers J, Hanna E, Myers EN (eds) Cancer of the head and neck. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, pp 427–453Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang H, Graham CM, Elci O et al (2013) Locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: CT texture and histogram analysis allow independent prediction of overall survival in patients treated with induction chemotherapy. Radiology 269:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ (2015) Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci Rep 5:13087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dang M, Lysack JT, Wu T et al (2015) MRI texture analysis predicts p53 status in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buch K, Fujita A, Li B, Kawashima Y, Qureshi MM, Sakai O (2015) Using texture analysis to determine human papillomavirus status of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas on CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1343–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Hoebers FJ et al (2015) External validation of a prognostic CT-based radiomic signature in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Oncol 54:1423–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu J, Mao Y, Li Z et al (2016) Use of texture analysis based on contrast-enhanced MRI to predict treatment response to chemoradiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vallieres M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I (2015) A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol 60:5471–5496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bayanati H, Thornhill RE, Souza CA et al (2015) Quantitative CT texture and shape analysis: can it differentiate benign and malignant mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with primary lung cancer? Eur Radiol 25:480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andersen MB, Harders SW, Ganeshan B, Thygesen J, Torp Madsen HH, Rasmussen F (2016) CT texture analysis can help differentiate between malignant and benign lymph nodes in the mediastinum in patients suspected for lung cancer. Acta Radiol 57:669–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foncubierta-Rodriguez A, Jimenez del Toro OA, Platon A, Poletti PA, Muller H, Depeursinge A (2013) Benefits of texture analysis of dual energy CT for computer-aided pulmonary embolism detection. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013:3973–3976Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oldan J, He M, Wu T et al (2014) Pilot study: evaluation of dual-energy computed tomography measurement strategies for positron emission tomography correlation in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Digit Imaging 27:824–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Depeursinge A, Foncubierta-Rodriguez A, Vargas A et al (2013) Rotation-covariant texture analysis of 4D dual-energy CT as an indicator of local pulmonary perfusion. 2013 IEEE 10th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 145–148Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al Ajmi E, Forghani B, Reinhold C, Bayat M, Forghani R (2018) Spectral multi-energy CT texture analysis with machine learning for tissue classification: an investigation using classification of benign parotid tumours as a testing paradigm. Eur Radiol 28:2604–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Srinivasan A, Parker RA, Manjunathan A, Ibrahim M, Shah GV, Mukherji SK (2013) Differentiation of benign and malignant neck pathologies: preliminary experience using spectral computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:666–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lam S, Gupta R, Levental M, Yu E, Curtin HD, Forghani R (2015) Optimal virtual monochromatic images for evaluation of normal tissues and head and neck cancer using dual-energy CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1518–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wichmann JL, Noske EM, Kraft J et al (2014) Virtual monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings in head and neck cancer. Invest Radiol 49:735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Forghani R, Levental M, Gupta R, Lam S, Dadfar N, Curtin HD (2015) Different spectral hounsfield unit curve and high-energy virtual monochromatic image characteristics of squamous cell carcinoma compared with nonossified thyroid cartilage. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1194–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Albrecht MH, Scholtz JE, Kraft J et al (2015) Assessment of an advanced monoenergetic reconstruction technique in dual-energy computed tomography of head and neck cancer. Eur Radiol 25:2493–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tawfik AM, Razek AA, Kerl JM, Nour-Eldin NE, Bauer R, Vogl TJ (2014) Comparison of dual-energy CT-derived iodine content and iodine overlay of normal, inflammatory and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma cervical lymph nodes. Eur Radiol 24:574–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rizzo S, Radice D, Femia M et al (2018) Metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes: quantification and different distribution of iodine uptake assessed by dual-energy CT. Eur Radiol 28:760–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang L, Luo D, Li L et al (2016) Differentiation of malignant cervical lymphadenopathy by dual-energy CT: a preliminary analysis. Sci Rep 6:31020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yamauchi H, Buehler M, Goodsitt MM, Keshavarzi N, Srinivasan A (2016) Dual-energy CT-based differentiation of benign posttreatment changes from primary or recurrent malignancy of the head and neck: comparison of spectral Hounsfield units at 40 and 70 keV and iodine concentration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matsumoto K, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, Ueno A, Yamada M, Kuribayashi S (2011) Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching: improved image quality as compared with that obtained with conventional 120-kVp CT. Radiology 259:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Forghani R, Kelly H, Yu E et al (2017) Low-energy virtual monochromatic dual-energy computed tomography images for the evaluation of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a study of tumor visibility compared with single-energy computed tomography and user acceptance. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:565–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Forghani R (2015) Advanced dual-energy CT for head and neck cancer imaging. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2015.1108193:1-13
  35. 35.
    Lam S, Gupta R, Kelly H, Curtin HD, Forghani R (2015) Multiparametric evaluation of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma using a single-source dual-energy CT with fast kVp switching: state of the art. Cancers (Basel) 7:2201–2216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forghani R, Srinivasan A, Forghani B (2017) Advanced tissue characterization and texture analysis using dual-energy computed tomography: horizons and emerging applications. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 27:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Forghani R, De Man B, Gupta R (2017) Dual-energy computed tomography: physical principles, approaches to scanning, usage, and implementation: part 2. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 27:385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kraft M, Ibrahim M, Spector M, Forghani R, Srinivasan A (2018) Comparison of virtual monochromatic series, iodine overlay maps, and single energy CT equivalent images in head and neck cancer conspicuity. Clin Imaging 48:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ueno Y, Forghani B, Forghani R et al (2017) Endometrial carcinoma: MR imaging-based texture model for preoperative risk stratification—a preliminary analysis. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161950:161950
  40. 40.
    Parikh J, Selmi M, Charles-Edwards G et al (2014) Changes in primary breast cancer heterogeneity may augment midtreatment MR imaging assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 272:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M et al (2015) Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 50:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Caruana R, Karampatziakis N, Yessenalina A (2008) An empirical evaluation of supervised learning in high dimensions. ICML '08, Proceedings of the 25th International conference on Machine learning. ACM, Helsinki, pp 96–103Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction, Second edition. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yang X, Wu K, Li S et al (2017) MFAP5 and TNNC1: potential markers for predicting occult cervical lymphatic metastasis and prognosis in early stage tongue cancer. Oncotarget 8:2525–2535Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Forghani
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Avishek Chatterjee
    • 5
  • Caroline Reinhold
    • 1
    • 3
  • Almudena Pérez-Lara
    • 2
    • 6
  • Griselda Romero-Sanchez
    • 2
  • Yoshiko Ueno
    • 3
    • 7
  • Maryam Bayat
    • 2
  • James W. M. Alexander
    • 2
  • Lynda Kadi
    • 2
    • 8
  • Jeffrey Chankowsky
    • 3
  • Jan Seuntjens
    • 4
    • 5
  • Behzad Forghani
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Research Institute of the McGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Segal Cancer Centre and Lady Davis Institute for Medical ResearchJewish General HospitalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Royal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Gerald Bronfman Department of OncologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Medical Physics Unit, Cedars Cancer CentreMcGill University Health CentreMontrealCanada
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyHospital Regional Universitario de MálagaMálagaSpain
  7. 7.Department of RadiologyKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  8. 8.Faculty of MedicineUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations