Nodal-based radiomics analysis for identifying cervical lymph node metastasis at levels I and II in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma using contrast-enhanced computed tomography.

Objective: Discriminating metastatic from benign cervical lymph nodes (LNs) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients using pretreatment computed tomography (CT) has been controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether CT-based texture analysis with machine learning can accurately identify cervical lymph node metastasis in OSCC patients.

Methods: Twenty-three patients (with 201 cervical LNs [150 benign, 51 metastatic] at levels I-V) who underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and subsequent cervical neck dissection were enrolled. Histopathologically proven LNs were randomly divided into the training cohort (70%; n = 141, at levels I-V) and validation cohort (30%; n = 60, at level I/II). Twenty-five texture features and the nodal size of targeted LNs were analyzed on the CT scans. The nodal-based sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic accuracy rates, and the area under the curves (AUCs) of the receiver operating characteristic curves of combined features using a support vector machine (SVM) at levels I/II, I, and II were evaluated and compared with two radiologists and a dentist (readers).

Results: In the validation cohort, the AUCs (0.820 at level I/II, 0.820 at level I, and 0.930 at level II, respectively) of the radiomics approach were superior to three readers (0.798-0.816, 0.773-0.798, and 0.825-0.865, respectively). The best models were more specific at levels I/II and I and accurate at each level than each of the readers (p < .05).

Conclusions: Machine learning-based analysis with contrast-enhanced CT can be used to noninvasively differentiate between benign and metastatic cervical LNs in OSCC patients.

Key Points: • The best algorithm in the validation cohort can noninvasively differentiate between benign and metastatic cervical LNs at levels I/II, I, and II. • The AUCs of the model at each level were superior to those of multireaders. • Significant differences in the specificities at level I/II and I and diagnostic accuracy rates at each level between the model and multireaders were found.