MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417040418 · doi:10.3390/cancers17233887

Enhancing PRRT Outcome Prediction in Neuroendocrine Tumors: Aggregated Multi-Lesion PET Radiomics Incorporating Inter-Tumor Heterogeneity

2025· article· en· W4417040418 on OpenAlexafffund
Maziar Sabouri, Ghasem Hajianfar, Omid Gharibi, Alireza Rafiei Sardouei, Yusuf Menda, Ayca Dundar, Camila Gadens Zamboni, Sanchay Jain, Marc Kruzer, Habib Zaidi, Fereshteh Yousefirizi, Arman Rahmim, Ahmad Shariftabrizi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRadiomicsPersonalized medicineNeuroendocrine tumorsPrecision medicineSelection (genetic algorithm)Outcome (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is effective in treating advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs), yet predicting individual response in this treatment remains a challenge due to inter-lesion heterogeneity. There is a lack of standardized, effective methods for using multi-lesion radiomics to predict progression and Time to Progression (TTP) in PRRT-treated patients. This study evaluated how aggregating radiomic features from multiple PET-identified lesions can be used to predict disease progression (event [progression and death] vs. event-free) and TTP. Methods: Eighty-one NETs patients with multiple lesions underwent pre-treatment PET/CT imaging. Lesions were segmented and ranked by minimum Standard Uptake Value (SUVmin) (both descending and ascending), SUVmean, SUVmax, and volume (descending). From each sorting, the top one, three, and five lesions were selected. For the selected lesions, radiomic features were extracted (using the Pyradiomics library) and lesion aggregation was performed using stacked vs. statistical methods. Eight classification models along with three feature selection methods were used to predict progression, and five survival models and three feature selection methods were used to predict TTP under a nested cross-validation framework. Results: The overall appraisal showed that sorting lesions based on SUVmin (descending) yields better classification performance in progression prediction. This is in addition to the fact that aggregating features extracted from all the lesions, as well as the top five lesions sorted by SUVmean, lead to the highest overall performance in TTP prediction. The individual appraisal in progression prediction models trained on the single top lesion sorted by SUVmin (descending) showed the highest recall and specificity despite data imbalance. The best-performing model was the Logistic Regression (LR) classifier with Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) (recall: 0.75, specificity: 0.77). In TTP prediction, the highest concordance index was obtained using a Random Survival Forest (RSF) trained on statistically aggregated features from the top five lesions ranked by SUVmean, selected via Univariate C-Index (UCI) (C-index = 0.68). Across both tasks, features from the Gray Level Size Zone Matrix (GLSZM) family were consistently among the most predictive, highlighting the importance of spatial heterogeneity in treatment response. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that informed lesion selection and tailored aggregation strategies significantly impact the predictive performance of radiomics-based models for progression and TTP prediction in PRRT-treated NET patients. These approaches can potentially enhance model accuracy and better capture tumor heterogeneity, supporting more personalized and practical PRRT implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207