CT-based radiomics with various classifiers for histological differentiation of parotid gland tumors.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed whether radiomics features could stratify parotid gland tumours accurately based on only noncontrast CT images and validated the best classifier of different radiomics models.

METHODS

In this single-centre study, we retrospectively recruited 249 patients with a diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA), Warthin tumour (WT), basal cell adenoma (BCA) or malignant parotid gland tumours (MPGTs) from June 2020 to August 2022. Each patient was randomly classified into training and testing cohorts at a ratio of 7:3, and then, pairwise comparisons in different parotid tumour groups were performed. CT images were transferred to 3D-Slicer software and the region of interest was manually drawn for feature extraction. Feature selection methods were performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient, test and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. Five common classifiers, namely, random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR), K-nearest neighbours (KNN) and general Bayesian network (Gnb), were selected to build different radiomics models. The receiver operating characteristic curve, area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and F-1 score were used to assess the prediction performances of these models. The calibration of the model was calculated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. DeLong's test was utilized for comparing the AUCs.

RESULTS

The radiomics model based on the RF, SVM, Gnb, LR, LR and RF classifiers obtained the highest AUC in differentiating PA from MPGTs, WT from MPGTs, BCA from MPGTs, PA from WT, PA from BCA, and WT from BCA, respectively. Accordingly, the AUC and the accuracy of the model for each classifier were 0.834 and 0.71, 0.893 and 0.79, 0.844 and 0.79, 0.902 and 0.88, 0.602 and 0.68, and 0.861 and 0.94, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that noncontrast CT-based radiomics could stratify refined pathological types of parotid tumours well but could not sufficiently differentiate PA from BCA. Different classifiers had the best diagnostic performance for different parotid tumours. Our study findings add to the current knowledge on the differential diagnosis of parotid tumours.