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
References
- Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The 2017 Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Thyroid. 2017;27:1341–1346. doi: 10.1089/thy.2017.0500.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, Löck S. Image biomarker standardisation initiative. arXiv 2019;1612.07003.
- Evidence Based Nation-wide Guideline Thyroid Carcinoma version 2.0. 2014. . Accessed 7 July 2021.
- Peeters CFW, Übelhör C, Mes SW, Martens RM, Koopman T, Graaf Pd, et al. Stable prediction with radiomics data. ArXiv. 2019;abs/1903.11696.
- Bouckaert RR, Frank E. Evaluating the replicability of significance tests for comparing learning algorithms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2004. p. 3–12.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Tomaszewski MR, Gillies RJ. The biological meaning of radiomic features. Radiology. 2021;298:505–516. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021202553.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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