Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates risk stratification in thymic epithelial tumors using machine learning and PET/CT, suggesting moderate discriminatory performance for prognosis.
Background: Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are rare mediastinal malignancies whose prognosis is largely determined by histology. Current predictive models rely on clinical variables and subjective imaging interpretation, with unsatisfied performance. Non-invasive pre-treatment risk stratification could guide surgical planning and perioperative management in patients with TETs. The role of fluorine-18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) in identifying aggressive disease is increasingly recognized. In this bicentric study, we aimed to evaluate a machine learning-based radiomics model using PET and CT images to differentiate between low-risk and high-risk TETs. Methods: Seventy-five patients who underwent PET/CT to evaluate the suspected anterior mediastinal mass and histopathologically diagnosed with TETs were included. On PET/CT images, the tumor was manually segmented by two experienced clinicians. First-order, shape, and texture features were extracted using the PyRadiomics library, resulting in 200 radiomics features (186 intensity/texture features and 14 shape features). In addition, rPET (i.e., tumor SUVmax/Liver SUVmax) parameter was included, yielding a grand total of 201 features. The feature set was reduced to 20 variables using ANOVA, with both selection and model evaluation performed via stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Results: The proposed approach achieved an average balanced accuracy of 0.58 ± 0.07 and an average AUC of 0.71 ± 0.04. Average sensitivity and specificity were 0.48 and 0.68, respectively. The model obtained an average Gmean of 0.57, indicating balanced and stable classification performance. Conclusions: Our ML models trained on PET/CT radiomic features showed moderate discriminatory performance for TET risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarubbi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: