Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33443602›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Radiomics analysis of 18F-Choline PET/CT in the prediction of disease outcome in high-risk prostate cancer: an explorative study on machine learning feature classification in 94 patients.

Pierpaolo Alongi, Alessandro Stefano, Albert Comelli, Riccardo Laudicella, Salvatore Scalisi, Giuseppe Arnone, Stefano Barone, Massimiliano Spada, Pierpaolo Purpura, Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. End-to-end [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Machine learning-based analysis ofPhysical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Pierpaolo AlongiNuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Contrada Pietrapollastra Pisciotto, 90015, Cefalù, PA, Italy. alongi.pierpaolo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8397-1640
Alessandro StefanoInstitute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology, National Research Council (CNR), Cefalù, PA, Italy.
Albert ComelliRi.MED Foundation, Palermo, Italy.
Riccardo LaudicellaDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and of Morpho-functional Imaging, Nuclear Medicine Unit, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Salvatore ScalisiNuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Contrada Pietrapollastra Pisciotto, 90015, Cefalù, PA, Italy.
Giuseppe ArnoneDepartment of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Stefano BaroneDipartimento di Scienze Agronomiche, Alimentari e Forestali (SAAF), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Massimiliano SpadaUnit of Oncology, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Cefalù, PA, Italy.
Pierpaolo PurpuraDepartment of Radiology, Fondazione Istituto Giuseppe Giglio Ct.da Pietrapollastra, Via Pisciotto, 90015, Cefalù (Palermo), Italy.
Tommaso Vincenzo BartolottaDepartment of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Massimo MidiriDepartment of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Roberto LagallaDepartment of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giorgio RussoInstitute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology, National Research Council (CNR), Cefalù, PA, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was (1) to investigate the application of texture analysis of choline PET/CT images in prostate cancer (PCa) patients and (2) to propose a machine-learning radiomics model able to select PET features predictive of disease progression in PCa patients with a same high-risk class at restaging. MATERIAL AND

methodsNinety-four high-risk PCa patients who underwent restaging Cho-PET/CT were analyzed. Follow-up data were recorded for a minimum of 13 months after the PET/CT scan. PET images were imported in LIFEx toolbox to extract 51 features from each lesion. A statistical system based on correlation matrix and point-biserial-correlation coefficient has been implemented for features reduction and selection, while Discriminant analysis (DA) was used as a method for features classification in a whole sample and sub-groups for primary tumor or local relapse (T), nodal disease (N), and metastatic disease (M).

resultsIn the whole group, 2 feature (HISTO_Entropy_log10; HISTO_Energy_Uniformity) results were able to discriminate the occurrence of disease progression at follow-up, obtaining the best performance in DA classification (sensitivity 47.1%, specificity 76.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7%, and accuracy 67.6%). In the sub-group analysis, the best performance in DA classification for T was obtained by selecting 3 features (SUVmin; SHAPE_Sphericity; GLCM_Correlation) with a sensitivity of 91.6%, specificity 84.1%, PPV 79.1%, and accuracy 87%; for N by selecting 2 features (HISTO = _Energy Uniformity; GLZLM_SZLGE) with a sensitivity of 68.1%, specificity 91.4%, PPV 83%, and accuracy 82.6%; and for M by selecting 2 features (HISTO_Entropy_log10 - HISTO_Entropy_log2) with a sensitivity 64.4%, specificity 74.6%, PPV 40.6%, and accuracy 72.5%.

conclusionThis machine learning model demonstrated to be feasible and useful to select Cho-PET features for T, N, and M with valuable association with high-risk PCa patients' outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Artificial intelligence applications are feasible and useful to select Cho-PET features. • Our model demonstrated the presence of specific features for T, N, and M with valuable association with high-risk PCa patients' outcomes. • Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm our results and to develop the application of artificial intelligence in PET imaging of PCa.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceCholineHumansMachine LearningMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesCholinefluoromethylcholineCholineMachine learningPositron emission tomography computed tomographyProstate cancerRadiomics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.