Distinguishing common renal cell carcinomas from benign renal tumors based on machine learning: comparing various CT imaging phases, slices, tumor sizes, and ROI segmentation strategies.

Objectives: To determine whether a CT-based machine learning (ML) can differentiate benign renal tumors from renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) and improve radiologists' diagnostic performance, and evaluate the impact of variable CT imaging phases, slices, tumor sizes, and region of interest (ROI) segmentation strategies. Methods: Patients with pathologically proven RCCs and benign renal tumors from our institution between 2008 and 2020 were included as the training dataset for ML model development and internal validation (including 418 RCCs and 78 benign tumors), and patients from two independent institutions and a public database (TCIA) were included as the external dataset for individual testing (including 262 RCCs and 47 benign tumors). Features were extracted from three-phase CT images. CatBoost was used for feature selection and ML model establishment. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of the ML model. Results: The ML model based on 3D images performed better than that based on 2D images, with the highest AUC of 0.81 and accuracy (ACC) of 0.86. All three radiologists achieved better performance by referring to the classifier's decision, with accuracies increasing from 0.82 to 0.87, 0.82 to 0.88, and 0.76 to 0.87. The ML model achieved higher negative predictive values (NPV, 0.82–0.99), and the radiologists achieved higher positive predictive values (PPV, 0.91–0.95). Conclusions: A ML classifier based on whole-tumor three-phase CT images can be a useful and promising tool for differentiating RCCs from benign renal tumors. The ML model also perfectly complements radiologist interpretations. Key Points: • A machine learning classifier based on CT images could be a reliable way to differentiate RCCs from benign renal tumors. • The machine learning model perfectly complemented the radiologists' interpretations. • Subtle variances in ROI delineation had little effect on the performance of the ML classifier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]