Renal tumor segmentation, visualization, and segmentation confidence using ensembles of neural networks in patients undergoing surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an automatic segmentation model for solid renal tumors on contrast-enhanced CTs and to visualize segmentation with associated confidence to promote clinical applicability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The training dataset included solid renal tumor patients from two tertiary centers undergoing surgical resection and receiving CT in the corticomedullary or nephrogenic contrast media (CM) phase. Manual tumor segmentation was performed on all axial CT slices serving as reference standard for automatic segmentations. Independent testing was performed on the publicly available KiTS 2019 dataset. Ensembles of neural networks (ENN, DeepLabV3) were used for automatic renal tumor segmentation, and their performance was quantified with DICE score. ENN average foreground entropy measured segmentation confidence (binary: successful segmentation with DICE score > 0.8 versus inadequate segmentation ≤ 0.8). RESULTS: N = 639/n = 210 patients were included in the training and independent test dataset. Datasets were comparable regarding age and sex (p > 0.05), while renal tumors in the training dataset were larger and more frequently benign (p < 0.01). In the internal test dataset, the ENN model yielded a median DICE score = 0.84 (IQR: 0.62-0.97, corticomedullary) and 0.86 (IQR: 0.77-0.96, nephrogenic CM phase), and the segmentation confidence an AUC = 0.89 (sensitivity = 0.86; specificity = 0.77). In the independent test dataset, the ENN model achieved a median DICE score = 0.84 (IQR: 0.71-0.97, corticomedullary CM phase); and segmentation confidence an accuracy = 0.84 (sensitivity = 0.86 and specificity = 0.81). ENN segmentations were visualized with color-coded voxelwise tumor probabilities and thresholds superimposed on clinical CT images. CONCLUSIONS: ENN-based renal tumor segmentation robustly performs in external test data and might aid in renal tumor classification and treatment planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Ensembles of neural networks (ENN) models could automatically segment renal tumors on routine CTs, enabling and standardizing downstream image analyses and treatment planning. Providing confidence measures and segmentation overlays on images can lower the threshold for clinical ENN implementation. KEY POINTS: Ensembles of neural networks (ENN) segmentation is visualized by color-coded voxelwise tumor probabilities and thresholds. ENN provided a high segmentation accuracy in internal testing and in an independent external test dataset. ENN models provide measures of segmentation confidence which can robustly discriminate between successful and inadequate segmentations.

Radiomics and machine learning for renal tumor subtype assessment using multiphase computed tomography in a multicenter setting.

OBJECTIVES: To distinguish histological subtypes of renal tumors using radiomic features and machine learning (ML) based on multiphase computed tomography (CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent surgical treatment for renal tumors at two tertiary centers from 2012 to 2022 were included retrospectively. Preoperative arterial (corticomedullary) and venous (nephrogenic) phase CT scans from these centers, as well as from external imaging facilities, were manually segmented, and standardized radiomic features were extracted. Following preprocessing and addressing the class imbalance, a ML algorithm based on extreme gradient boosting trees (XGB) was employed to predict renal tumor subtypes using 10-fold cross-validation. The evaluation was conducted using the multiclass area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Algorithms were trained on data from one center and independently tested on data from the other center. RESULTS: The training cohort comprised n = 297 patients (64.3% clear cell renal cell cancer [RCC], 13.5% papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC), 7.4% chromophobe RCC, 9.4% oncocytomas, and 5.4% angiomyolipomas (AML)), and the testing cohort n = 121 patients (56.2%/16.5%/3.3%/21.5%/2.5%). The XGB algorithm demonstrated a diagnostic performance of AUC = 0.81/0.64/0.8 for venous/arterial/combined contrast phase CT in the training cohort, and AUC = 0.75/0.67/0.75 in the independent testing cohort. In pairwise comparisons, the lowest diagnostic accuracy was evident for the identification of oncocytomas (AUC = 0.57-0.69), and the highest for the identification of AMLs (AUC = 0.9-0.94) CONCLUSION: Radiomic feature analyses can distinguish renal tumor subtypes on routinely acquired CTs, with oncocytomas being the hardest subtype to identify. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiomic feature analyses yield robust results for renal tumor assessment on routine CTs. Although radiologists routinely rely on arterial phase CT for renal tumor assessment and operative planning, radiomic features derived from arterial phase did not improve the accuracy of renal tumor subtype identification in our cohort.

Primary renal sarcomas: imaging features and discrimination from non-sarcoma renal tumors.

OBJECTIVES: To assess imaging features of primary renal sarcomas in order to better discriminate them from non-sarcoma renal tumors. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with renal sarcomas from 1995 to 2018 were included from 11 European tertiary referral centers (Germany, Belgium, Turkey). Renal sarcomas were 1:4 compared to patients with non-sarcoma renal tumors. CT/MRI findings were assessed using 21 predefined imaging features. A random forest model was trained to predict "renal sarcoma vs. non-sarcoma renal tumors" based on demographics and imaging features. RESULTS: n = 34 renal sarcomas were included and compared to n = 136 non-sarcoma renal tumors. Renal sarcomas manifested in younger patients (median 55 vs. 67 years, p < 0.01) and were more complex (high RENAL score complexity 79.4% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.01). Renal sarcomas were larger (median diameter 108 vs. 43 mm, p < 0.01) with irregular shape and ill-defined margins, and more frequently demonstrated invasion of the renal vein or inferior vena cava, tumor necrosis, direct invasion of adjacent organs, and contact to renal artery or vein, compared to non-sarcoma renal tumors (p < 0.05, each). The random forest algorithm yielded a median AUC = 93.8% to predict renal sarcoma histology, with sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 90.4%, 76.5%, and 93.9%, respectively. Tumor diameter and RENAL score were the most relevant imaging features for renal sarcoma identification. CONCLUSION: Renal sarcomas are rare tumors commonly manifesting as large masses in young patients. A random forest model using demographics and imaging features shows good diagnostic accuracy for discrimination of renal sarcomas from non-sarcoma renal tumors, which might aid in clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • Renal sarcomas commonly manifest in younger patients as large, complex renal masses. • Compared to non-sarcoma renal tumors, renal sarcomas more frequently demonstrated invasion of the renal vein or inferior vena cava, tumor necrosis, direct invasion of adjacent organs, and contact to renal artery or vein. • Using demographics and standardized imaging features, a random forest showed excellent diagnostic performance for discrimination of sarcoma vs. non-sarcoma renal tumors (AUC = 93.8%, sensitivity = 90.4%, specificity = 76.5%, and PPV = 93.9%).