Back to all available

A retrospective study differentiating focal cortical dysplasia from dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor in children with epilepsy using MRI-based radiomics

oncology
pediatrics
radiology-and-medical-imaging

Abstract

Background: Focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET) are two major causes of intractable epilepsy, often with confusing imaging findings. This study aimed to develop magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics models for preoperative differentiation between FCD and DNET.

Methods: This study included 169 patients who underwent epilepsy surgery and were pathologically diagnosed with FCD (n=96) or DNET (n=73). Conventional brain T1 WI, T2 WI, and T2 FLAIR images were acquired from all cases. The whole dataset was randomly divided into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 3:1. PyRadiomics software was used for feature extraction and selection. The final features were determined using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to establish radiomics models based on individual sequences or the fusion of these sequences. The performance of each model was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the optimal model was also compared with the radiologists' assessment results.

Results: The fusion radiomics model exhibited the best performance in differentiating between FCD and DNET, with an AUC of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.799-0.968) and an accuracy of 0.820, which were superior to the individual models based on T1 WI, T2 WI, or T2 FLAIR images. In addition, the diagnostic performance of the fusion radiomics model was superior to that of the junior radiologist and comparable to that of the senior radiologist.

Conclusions: The fusion radiomics model based on multi-sequence MRI can successfully differentiate FCD from DNET preoperatively, which contributes to appropriate surgical planning and satisfactory treatment outcomes.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].