Patients
The current retrospective trial evaluated patients with continuous thyroid nodules first detected by ultrasound from January 2018 to March 2019. According to the American Society of Radiology thyroid imaging, reporting and data system [12], the grade of tumor was TR3-TR5. All patients underwent multi parameter MRI, followed by thyroid surgery, subtotal or total thyroidectomy within 1 week after MRI. PTC was confirmed by pathology. The exclusion criteria were: (1) pathological diagnosis did not reflect PTC; (2) Tumor size < 5 mm; (3) There was no correlation between the pathological data of tumor specimens and the results of magnetic resonance imaging; (4) Poor image quality. Finally, 107 cases were evaluated.
The study was approved by our local institutional ethics committee.
MRI acquisition
All patients were scanned on the excite HD 1.5 T scanner (GE Healthcare, USA), which included an 8-channel special neck surface coil using the same scanning protocol. The applied parameters were as follows: axial T2-weighted (T2WI) fast recovery fast spin-echo with fat suppression with echo time (TE) of 85 ms, repetition time (TR) of 1280 ms, and slice thickness of 4–5 mm, matrix of 288 × 192, spacing of 1 mm, field of view (FOV) of 18 cm, and a number of excitations (NEX) of 4; contrast-enhanced axial T1WI (CE-T1WI) with multiphase utilizing a fast-spoiled gradient recalled echo sequence, which TE of 1.7 ms, TR of 5.7 ms, matrix of 192 × 256, FOV of 14 cm, and NEX of 1;DWI with a single-shot echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence, with minimal TE, and TR of 6550 ms, slice thickness of 4–5 mm, matrix of 128 × 128, spacing of 0.5 mm, FOV of 14 cm, and NEX of 4 (b value, 800 s/mm2). The magnevist contrast agent from Bayer healthcare was administered intravenously at 3 ml / S (0.2 ml/kg), and then rinsed with 20 ml normal saline. Scanning was performed at 30, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300 s after contrast agent administration to obtain images of six stages including breath-holds. The spatial saturation band was used to remove signals generated by covering fat and surrounding tissues.
Histopathologic analysis
Surgical tumor cases were evaluated and analyzed by experienced pathologists who have been engaged in relevant research for more than 10 years. Tumor specimens were paraffin embedded and sectioned, and stained with hematoxylin eosin (H&E). And then the established criteria were used to assess thyroid aggressive characteristics [13, 14]. Finally, all patients were divided into non-aggressiveness group and aggressiveness group.
MRI radiomics
Tumor segmentation
Tumor segmentation is the key step of subsequent high-throughput feature extraction and quantitative analysis. In this paper, the segment editor part of 3D slicer software is used to segment the focus area of thyroid cancer. It is a module for segmentation, which can subdivide and depict the region of interest. Two senior radiologists manually marked them separately and discussed repeatedly to obtain the final results in case of disagreement. The largest tumor of each patient was selected in order to reduce the potential differences of multiple tumors in the same individual, which greatly improve the applicability of the results. And to reduce the impact of segmentation accuracy on model performance, we give up including the cases with disagreement segmentation in the experimental dataset. Figure 1 shows the results of three modal MRI, the first row is the images of three MRI modalities, and the second row corresponds to the segmentation results.
Radiomics feature extraction
Radiomics feature is the basic attribute description of class, and feature extraction is the basis of classification work. In this paper, we extract a total of 1584 features from CE-T1WI, T2WI and DWI modalities, with 528 for each modality. The 528 features include: 18 intensity features, 15 shape features, 39 texture features (8 GLCM, 13 GLRLM, 13 GLSZM and 5 NGTDM) and 456 (8 wavelet submaps * 57 intensity and texture features) wavelet features. More details about these features please refer to Appendix 1. And this part of work was completed by MATLAB.
Radiomic feature selection
The problem considered in feature selection is to make the features sparse, that is, some redundant features are removed through this step, so as to reduce the computational cost. The input factors of the model are reduced, and the input–output relationship established by the model will be clearer, so the interpretability of the model can be improved. In this work, sparse representation is used to select a few crucial features for the following classification. The sparse representation-based feature selection model can be written as:
$${\hat{\text{w}}} = \mathop {{\text{argmin}}}\limits_{{{\rm w}}} {\text{y}} - {\text{Fw}}\left\| {_{2}^{2} + {\upgamma }} \right\|{\text{w}}_{0}$$
(1)
where \(\mathrm{y}\in {\mathrm{R}}^{\mathrm{m}}\) is the training sample label, \(\mathrm{m}\) is the number of training samples, \(\mathrm{F}=[{\mathrm{f}}_{1},{\mathrm{f}}_{2}\cdots {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{m}}{]}^{\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathrm{R}}^{\mathrm{m}\times 2\mathrm{K}}\) is the training sample feature set, \(\upgamma\) is the sparse control parameter. The absolute value of each element in the representation coefficient \(\mathrm{w}\) indicates the importance of the corresponding feature. Once the \(\mathrm{w}\) has been calculated, we sort the features in descending order of importance according to the corresponding absolute value of the elements in \(\mathrm{w}\). Finally, we select the optimal subset of features using a sequential advance method based on cross-validation (on the cross-validation set). Specifically, the first 5 features are selected as the initial feature subset, and then the 6th to 100th features are put into the subset in turn. And the accuracy of cross-validation is calculated whenever the feature subset is updated. The subset with the highest accuracy is selected as the optimal subset.
Model construction and validation
Model building is the herald of the data analysis stage. According to the results of feature selection in the previous step, we use a sparse representation method to establish a prediction model for the classification of aggressiveness and non-aggressiveness thyroid cancer. Specifically, suppose \(\mathbf{F}= [{\mathbf{F}}_{1}\cdots {\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{c}}{\cdots \mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{C}}]\) denotes the feature set of training samples from \(\mathbf{C}\) classes, and \({\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{c}}\) is the sample feature set of class c. The first step of sparse representation can be formulated as:
$$\left\{{\varvec{\Psi}},{\varvec{\Phi}}\right\}=\underset{{\varvec{\Phi}},{\varvec{\Psi}}}{\mathrm{argmin}}{\sum }_{\mathrm{c}-1}^{\mathrm{C}}{\Vert {\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{c}} -{{\varvec{\Psi}}}_{\mathbf{c}}{{\varvec{\Phi}}}_{\mathbf{c}}{\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{c}} \Vert }_{\mathrm{F}}^{2}+\uplambda {\Vert {{\varvec{\Phi}}}_{\mathbf{c}}\overline{{\mathbf{F} }_{\mathbf{c}}}\Vert }_{\mathrm{F}}^{2},\mathrm{ s}.\mathrm{t}.{\Vert {\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{q}}\Vert }_{2}^{2}\le 1$$
(2)
where is \(\uplambda\) a scalar constant, \(\overline{{\mathbf{F} }_{\mathbf{c}}}\) is the complementary matrix of \({\mathbf{F}}_{\mathbf{c}}\). Dictionary pair \({\varvec{\Psi}}\) and \({\varvec{\Phi}}\) are used to reconstruct and code \(\mathbf{F}\), respectively. \({\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{q}}\) is an atom of dictionary \({\varvec{\Psi}}\). When the dictionary pair \({\varvec{\Psi}}\) and \({\varvec{\Phi}}\) are learned, the classification model can be formulated as:
$${\mathrm{l}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\underset{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{argmin}}{\Vert {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}}-{{\varvec{\Psi}}}_{\mathrm{c}}{{\varvec{\Phi}}}_{\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}}\Vert }_{2},\mathrm{ c}\in [1,\cdots ,\mathrm{ C}]$$
(3)
where \({\mathrm{l}}_{\mathrm{i}}\) is the class label of testing case \(\mathrm{i}\), and \({\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}}\) is the feature of \(\mathrm{i}\).
In our experiments, \(\upgamma\) and \(\uplambda\) were set to 0.1 and 0.01, respectively. The 107 cases were randomly divided into cross-validation (71) and testing (36) sets in a ratio of about 2: 1. The cross-validation set was used for feature selection in advance. When the number of features is determined, we directly use the cross-validation set to establish a sparse representation classification model and test the testing set on it. We compare the classification performance of each modality as well as the combination of three modalities. Here we use the simplest modality combination method, that is, direct concatenating the features of three modalities. The classification models were evaluated by calculating the subject operating characteristic curve (ROC), accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV).