Predictive machine learning models assess tumor risk in endometrial cancer, suggesting enhanced surgical planning.
Purpose: Accurate preoperative risk stratification in endometrial cancer (EC) is essential for guiding surgical and therapeutic decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminative performance of [18F]-FDG PET/CT-derived radiomic features combined with machine learning models for differentiating low-risk (LRH-EC) and high-risk histology (HRH-EC) subtypes. Methods: A total of 159 patients with histopathologically confirmed EC who underwent preoperative [18F]-FDG PET/CT were retrospectively analyzed. Radiomic features were extracted using LIFEx version 7.4.0 software following IBSI guidelines. After FDR correction and Pearson correlation–based redundancy reduction (|r| > 0.80), 16 radiomic features were retained for modeling. Three feature configurations (Conventional PET parameters, Radiomics16, and Combined) were evaluated. Machine learning models were developed using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed using AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, Wilson confidence intervals, DeLong’s test, and McNemar’s test. Results: Artificial Neural Network (ANN) (AUC = 0.709) and Random Forest (RF) (AUC = 0.686) achieved the highest discriminative performance within the Radiomics16 feature set. No statistically significant superiority between algorithms or feature configurations was observed by DeLong analysis. However, McNemar’s test demonstrated significant patient-level classification differences for the Combined ANN model (p < 0.001). NGTDM_Coarseness and SUVmin emerged as the most influential features, reflecting tumor heterogeneity and metabolic activity. Conclusions: [18F]-FDG PET/CT-based radiomics combined with machine learning provides moderate yet consistent discrimination between LRH-EC and HRH-EC. While external validation is required, this approach may support noninvasive preoperative risk stratification in endometrial cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yagci et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: