2D and 3D CT Radiomic Features Performance Comparison in Characterization of Gastric Cancer: A Multi-center Study

TL;DR

This study compares 2D and 3D radiomic features for gastric cancer characterization across multiple centers, finding 2D features perform comparably to 3D, suggesting 2D is a time-efficient alternative.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive multi-center comparison of 2D versus 3D radiomic features in gastric cancer, highlighting the efficiency of 2D features without sacrificing performance.

Findings

2D and 3D models have similar AUCs in GC tasks

Models with 2D features are statistically more advantageous with different resampling spacings

Time-saving 2D annotation is recommended for GC radiomics

Abstract

Objective: Radiomics, an emerging tool for medical image analysis, is potential towards precisely characterizing gastric cancer (GC). Whether using one-slice 2D annotation or whole-volume 3D annotation remains a long-time debate, especially for heterogeneous GC. We comprehensively compared 2D and 3D radiomic features' representation and discrimination capacity regarding GC, via three tasks. Methods: Four-center 539 GC patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into the training and validation cohorts. From 2D or 3D regions of interest (ROIs) annotated by radiologists, radiomic features were extracted respectively. Feature selection and model construction procedures were customed for each combination of two modalities (2D or 3D) and three tasks. Subsequently, six machine learning models (Model_2D^LNM, Model_3D^LNM; Model_2D^LVI, Model_3D^LVI; Model_2D^pT, Model_3D^pT) were derived and evaluated to reflect modalities' performances in characterizing GC. Furthermore, we performed an auxiliary experiment to assess modalities' performances when resampling spacing is different. Results: Regarding three tasks, the yielded areas under the curve (AUCs) were: Model_2D^LNM's 0.712 (95% confidence interval, 0.613-0.811), Model_3D^LNM's 0.680 (0.584-0.775); Model_2D^LVI's 0.677 (0.595-0.761), Model_3D^LVI's 0.615 (0.528-0.703); Model_2D^pT's 0.840 (0.779-0.901), Model_3D^pT's 0.813 (0.747-0.879). Moreover, the auxiliary experiment indicated that Models_2D are statistically more advantageous than Models3D with different resampling spacings. Conclusion: Models constructed with 2D radiomic features revealed comparable performances with those constructed with 3D features in characterizing GC. Significance: Our work indicated that time-saving 2D annotation would be the better choice in GC, and provided a related reference to further radiomics-based researches.