Quantitative classification and radiomics of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in indeterminate thyroid nodules

Elizabeth J de Koster, Wyanne A Noortman, Jacob M Mostert, Jan Booij, Catherine B Brouwer, Bart de Keizer, John M H de Klerk, Wim J G Oyen, Floris H P van Velden, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Dennis Vriens, EfFECTS trial study group, Elizabeth J de Koster, Wyanne A Noortman, Jacob M Mostert, Jan Booij, Catherine B Brouwer, Bart de Keizer, John M H de Klerk, Wim J G Oyen, Floris H P van Velden, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Dennis Vriens, EfFECTS trial study group

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate whether quantitative [18F]FDG-PET/CT assessment, including radiomic analysis of [18F]FDG-positive thyroid nodules, improved the preoperative differentiation of indeterminate thyroid nodules of non-Hürthle cell and Hürthle cell cytology.

Methods: Prospectively included patients with a Bethesda III or IV thyroid nodule underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed for standardised uptake values (SUV) and SUV-ratios, including assessment of SUV cut-offs at which a malignant/borderline neoplasm was reliably ruled out (≥ 95% sensitivity). [18F]FDG-positive scans were included in radiomic analysis. After segmentation at 50% of SUVpeak, 107 radiomic features were extracted from [18F]FDG-PET and low-dose CT images. Elastic net regression classifiers were trained in a 20-times repeated random split. Dimensionality reduction was incorporated into the splits. Predictive performance of radiomics was presented as mean area under the ROC curve (AUC) across the test sets.

Results: Of 123 included patients, 84 (68%) index nodules were visually [18F]FDG-positive. The malignant/borderline rate was 27% (33/123). SUV-metrices showed AUCs ranging from 0.705 (95% CI, 0.601-0.810) to 0.729 (0.633-0.824), 0.708 (0.580-0.835) to 0.757 (0.650-0.864), and 0.533 (0.320-0.747) to 0.700 (0.502-0.898) in all (n = 123), non-Hürthle (n = 94), and Hürthle cell (n = 29) nodules, respectively. At SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmax-ratio, and SUVpeak-ratio cut-offs of 2.1 g/mL, 1.6 g/mL, 1.2, and 0.9, respectively, sensitivity of [18F]FDG-PET/CT was 95.8% (95% CI, 78.9-99.9%) in non-Hürthle cell nodules. In Hürthle cell nodules, cut-offs of 5.2 g/mL, 4.7 g/mL, 3.4, and 2.8, respectively, resulted in 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 66.4-100%). Radiomic analysis of 84 (68%) [18F]FDG-positive nodules showed a mean test set AUC of 0.445 (95% CI, 0.290-0.600) for the PET model.

Conclusion: Quantitative [18F]FDG-PET/CT assessment ruled out malignancy in indeterminate thyroid nodules. Distinctive, higher SUV cut-offs should be applied in Hürthle cell nodules to optimize rule-out ability. Radiomic analysis did not contribute to the additional differentiation of [18F]FDG-positive nodules.

Trial registration number: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02208544 (5 August 2014), https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02208544 .

Keywords: Indeterminate; Quantitative; Radiomics; Standardised uptake value; Thyroid carcinoma; Thyroid cytology; Thyroid nodule; [18F]FDG-PET/CT.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flowchart. aPatient screening for the original trial, including eligibility criteria, were previously published [4]. bBaseline characteristics of included patients (Table 1) were similar to those of excluded patients (Supplementary table 3). cnon-Hürthle cell nodules comprise nodules of AUS/FLUS (n = 55) and FN/SFN (n = 39) cytology. AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance. FN/SFN, cytology (suspicious for a) follicular neoplasm. FT-UMP, follicular tumour of uncertain malignant potential. HCN/SHCN, (suspicious for a) Hürthle cell neoplasm. NIFTP, non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quantitative [18F]FDG-PET/CT assessment and delineation of the VOI for radiomic analysis. Transverse and coronal [18F]FDG-PET/CT (a, b), maximum intensity projection (MIP) (c, d) and low-dose CT (e, f) images of a patient with a solitary, 30 mm Bethesda III thyroid nodule in the right lobe. Visual assessment (a) of the [18F]FDG-PET/CT showed an [18F]FDG-positive index nodule. Quantitative assessment (b) demonstrated a SUVmax of 9.7 g/mL and SUVpeak of 7.0 g/mL of the index nodule, and a SUVmax of 1.6 g/mL in the background of surrounding normal thyroid tissue. Consequently, the SUVmax-ratio and SUVpeak-ratio were 6.1 (9.7/1.6) and 4.4 (7.0/1.6), respectively. For radiomic analysis, VOIs were delineated on the [18F]FDG-PET scans using an isocontour that applies a threshold of 50% of the SUVpeak, corrected for local background (c, d) [29]. Boxing was applied to exclude [18F]FDG-positive tissue surrounding the index nodule and ldCT images were used as a visual reference (e, f). VOIs delineated on the PET images were resampled with a nearest neighbour algorithm to derive the ldCT VOIs
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
ROC curves of quantitative [18F]FDG-PET/CT analysis. ROC curves for SUVmax (blue line), SUVpeak (green), SUVmax-ratio (purple), and SUVpeak-ratio (red) in a all (n = 123), b non-Hürthle cell (n = 94), and c Hürthle cell (n = 29) nodules. a: In all nodules, the AUCs for the SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmax-ratio, and SUVpeak-ratio were 0.708 (95% CI, 0.609–0.807), 0.705 (0.601–0.810), 0.729 (0.633–0.824), and 0.721 (0.618–0.824), respectively. b: In non-Hürthle cell nodules, these AUCs were 0.732 (95% CI, 0.615–0.849), 0.708 (0.580–0.835), 0.757 (0.650–0.864), and 0.723 (0.601–0.844), respectively. c: In Hürthle cell nodules, these AUCs were 0.533 (95% CI, 0.320–0.747), 0.600 (0.392–0.808), 0.606 (0.388–0.823), and 0.700 (0.502–0.898), respectively
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
ROC curves of the PET model of the radiomic analysis. ROC curves for the PET/CT model of the radiomic analysis. The AUC was 0.445 (95% CI, 0.290–0.600) in all nodules (n = 84, purple line), 0.519 (95% CI, 0.298–0.740) in non-Hürthle cell nodules (n = 56, green), and 0.694 (95% CI, 0.461–0.926) in Hürthle cell nodules (n = 28, blue)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Proposed [18F]FDG-PET/CT-driven workup of Bethesda III/IV thyroid nodules

References

    1. Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The 2017 Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Thyroid. 2017;27:1341–1346. doi: 10.1089/thy.2017.0500.
    1. Bongiovanni M, Spitale A, Faquin WC, Mazzucchelli L, Baloch ZW. The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology: a meta-analysis. Acta Cytol. 2012;56:333–339. doi: 10.1159/000339959.
    1. Durante C, Grani G, Lamartina L, Filetti S, Mandel SJ, Cooper DS. The diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules: a review. JAMA. 2018;319:914–924. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0898.
    1. de Koster EJ, de Geus-Oei LF, Brouwers AH, van Dam EWCM, Dijkhorst-Oei LT, van Engen-van Grunsven ACH, et al. [18F]FDG-PET/CT to prevent futile surgery in indeterminate thyroid nodules: a blinded, randomised controlled multicentre trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022. 10.1007/s00259-021-05627-2.
    1. de Geus-Oei LF, Pieters GF, Bonenkamp JJ, Mudde AH, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Corstens FH, et al. 18F-FDG PET reduces unnecessary hemithyroidectomies for thyroid nodules with inconclusive cytologic results. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:770–775.
    1. Deandreis D, Al Ghuzlan A, Auperin A, Vielh P, Caillou B, Chami L, et al. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT useful for the presurgical characterization of thyroid nodules with indeterminate fine needle aspiration cytology? Thyroid. 2012;22:165–172. doi: 10.1089/thy.2011.0255.
    1. Munoz Perez N, Villar del Moral JM, Muros Fuentes MA, Lopez de la Torre M, Arcelus Martinez JI, Becerra Massare P, et al. Could 18F-FDG-PET/CT avoid unnecessary thyroidectomies in patients with cytological diagnosis of follicular neoplasm? Langenbeck’s archives of surgery. 2013;398:709-16. 10.1007/s00423-013-1070-9.
    1. Merten MM, Castro MR, Zhang J, Durski JM, Ryder M. Examining the role of preoperative positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) in combination with ultrasonography in discriminating benign from malignant cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules. Thyroid. 2017;27:95–102. doi: 10.1089/thy.2016.0379.
    1. Nguyen TT, Lange NGE, Nielsen AL, Thomassen A, Dossing H, Godballe C, et al. PET/CT and prediction of thyroid cancer in patients with follicular neoplasm or atypia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275:2109–2117. doi: 10.1007/s00405-018-5030-4.
    1. Rosario PW, Rocha TG, Calsolari MR. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: a prospective study. Nucl Med Commun. 2019;40:185–187. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000946.
    1. Trimboli P, Piccardo A, Alevizaki M, Virili C, Naseri M, Sola S, et al. Dedicated neck (18) F-FDG PET/CT: an additional tool for risk assessment in thyroid nodules at ultrasound intermediate risk. Clin Endocrinol. 2019;90:737–743. doi: 10.1111/cen.13949.
    1. Piccardo A, Puntoni M, Dezzana M, Bottoni G, Foppiani L, Marugo A, et al. Indeterminate thyroid nodules. The role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the “era” of ultrasonography risk stratification systems and new thyroid cytology classifications. Endocrine. 2020;69:553–61. 10.1007/s12020-020-02239-y.
    1. Wong KS, Angell TE, Barletta JA, Krane JF. Hurthle cell lesions of the thyroid: progress made and challenges remaining. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;129:347–362. doi: 10.1002/cncy.22375.
    1. Pathak KA, Klonisch T, Nason RW, Leslie WD. FDG-PET characteristics of Hurthle cell and follicular adenomas. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:506–509. doi: 10.1007/s12149-016-1087-6.
    1. Zhou X, Zheng Z, Chen C, Zhao B, Cao H, Li T, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of Hurthle cell carcinoma: a population based study. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:407. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06915-0.
    1. de Koster EJ, de Geus-Oei LF, Dekkers OM, van Engen-van GI, Hamming J, Corssmit EPM, et al. Diagnostic utility of molecular and imaging biomarkers in cytological indeterminate thyroid nodules. Endocr Rev. 2018;39:154–191. doi: 10.1210/er.2017-00133.
    1. Limkin EJ, Sun R, Dercle L, Zacharaki EI, Robert C, Reuze S, et al. Promises and challenges for the implementation of computational medical imaging (radiomics) in oncology. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1191–1206. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx034.
    1. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology. 2016;278:563–577. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169.
    1. Giovanella L, Milan L, Piccardo A, Bottoni G, Cuzzocrea M, Paone G, et al. Radiomics analysis improves (18)FDG PET/CT-based risk stratification of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules. Endocrine. 2021. 10.1007/s12020-021-02856-1.
    1. Sollini M, Cozzi L, Chiti A, Kirienko M. Texture analysis and machine learning to characterize suspected thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: where do we stand? Eur J Radiol. 2018;99:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.004.
    1. Sollini M, Cozzi L, Pepe G, Antunovic L, Lania A, Di Tommaso L, et al. [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT texture analysis in thyroid incidentalomas: preliminary results. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2017;1:3. doi: 10.1186/s41824-017-0009-8.
    1. Aksu A, Karahan Sen NP, Acar E, Capa KG. Evaluating focal (18)F-FDG uptake in thyroid gland with radiomics. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;54:241–248. doi: 10.1007/s13139-020-00659-2.
    1. Ceriani L, Milan L, Virili C, Cascione L, Paone G, Trimboli P, et al. Radiomics analysis of [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-avid thyroid incidentalomas improves risk stratification and selection for clinical assessment. Thyroid. 2021;31:88–95. doi: 10.1089/thy.2020.0224.
    1. Kim SJ, Chang S. Predictive value of intratumoral heterogeneity of F-18 FDG uptake for characterization of thyroid nodules according to Bethesda categories of fine needle aspiration biopsy results. Endocrine. 2015;50:681–688. doi: 10.1007/s12020-015-0620-z.
    1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, Doherty GM, Mandel SJ, Nikiforov YE, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: the American Thyroid Association guidelines task force on thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26:1–133. doi: 10.1089/thy.2015.0020.
    1. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.
    1. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–S150. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.
    1. Kikinis R, Pieper SD, Vosburgh KG. 3D slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization, and clinical support. In: Jolesz F, editor. Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2014. pp. 277–289.
    1. Frings V, van Velden FH, Velasquez LM, Hayes W, van de Ven PM, Hoekstra OS, et al. Repeatability of metabolically active tumor volume measurements with FDG PET/CT in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies: a multicenter study. Radiology. 2014;273:539–548. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132807.
    1. van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C, Hosny A, Aucoin N, Narayan V, et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e104–e107. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339.
    1. Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, Löck S. Image biomarker standardisation initiative. arXiv 2019;1612.07003.
    1. Evidence Based Nation-wide Guideline Thyroid Carcinoma version 2.0. 2014. . Accessed 7 July 2021.
    1. Peeters CFW, Übelhör C, Mes SW, Martens RM, Koopman T, Graaf Pd, et al. Stable prediction with radiomics data. ArXiv. 2019;abs/1903.11696.
    1. Bouckaert RR, Frank E. Evaluating the replicability of significance tests for comparing learning algorithms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2004. p. 3–12.
    1. Orlhac F, Nioche C, Klyuzhin I, Rahmim A, Buvat I. Radiomics in PET imaging: a practical guide for newcomers. PET Clin. 2021;16:597–612. doi: 10.1016/j.cpet.2021.06.007.
    1. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015;350:g7594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7594.
    1. Slowinska-Klencka D, Wysocka-Konieczna K, Klencki M, Popowicz B. Usability of EU-TIRADS in the diagnostics of hurthle cell thyroid nodules with equivocal cytology. J Clin Med. 2020;9. 10.3390/jcm9113410.
    1. Pathak KA, Goertzen AL, Nason RW, Klonisch T, Leslie WD. A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2016;12:27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.008.
    1. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1408–1425. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1306-7.
    1. Nie F, Xu D, Tsang IW, Zhang C. Flexible manifold embedding: a framework for semi-supervised and unsupervised dimension reduction. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2010;19:1921–1932. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2010.2044958.
    1. Tomaszewski MR, Gillies RJ. The biological meaning of radiomic features. Radiology. 2021;298:505–516. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021202553.
    1. Pfaehler E, van Sluis J, Merema BBJ, van Ooijen P, Berendsen RCM, van Velden FHP, et al. Experimental multicenter and multivendor evaluation of the performance of PET radiomic features using 3-dimensionally printed phantom inserts. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:469–476. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229724.
    1. Zwanenburg A, Vallières M, Abdalah MA, Aerts HJWL, Andrearczyk V, Apte A, et al. The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology. 2020:191145. 10.1148/radiol.2020191145.
    1. Orlhac F, Boughdad S, Philippe C, Stalla-Bourdillon H, Nioche C, Champion L, et al. A postreconstruction harmonization method for multicenter radiomic studies in PET. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1321–1328. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.199935.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться