ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Neuro-Oncology and Neurosurgical Oncology
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1539432
MR radiomics in assessment of consistency of pituitary macroadenoma: Can T1-weighted contrast enhanced image improve diagnostic performance of T2-weighted image?
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Mianyang (Sichuan Mental Health Center), Mianyang, China
- 2Department of Neurosurgery, The Third Hospital of Mianyang (Sichuan Mental Health Center), Mianyang, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objectives To evaluate and compare the efficacy of radiomics models derived from T2-weighted and/or contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CET1) images in assessing pituitary macroadenoma consistency, and to validate their performance stability under varying MRI field strengths and scanner vendors. Methods A total of 133 patients with pathologically proven pituitary macroadenomas (35 fibrous, 98 non-fibrous) were retrospectively included. Three logistic regression models were constructed: a T2 model, a CET1 model, and a T2-CET1 combined model, based on features selected from coronal T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CET1) images. An external validation cohort of 40 patients (20 fibrous, 20 non-fibrous) was selected from another healthcare institution. Model performance was primarily evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Stratified analyses were performed to compare the predictive performance of the models across different magnetic field strengths (1.5T and 3.0T) and scanner vendors. Results In the test dataset, the T2-CET1 combined model outperformed both the independent CET1 and T2 models, achieving an AUC of 0.86, accuracy of 83.3%, sensitivity of 83.3%, and specificity of 83.8%. This compares favorably with the CET1 model (AUC: 0.80, accuracy: 73.3%, sensitivity: 80.0%, specificity: 66.7%) and the T2 model (AUC: 0.79, accuracy: 76.7%, sensitivity: 76.7%, specificity: 76.7%). The combined model's superior performance extended to the external validation set, where its AUC (0.865) exceeded that of the CET1 model (0.765) and the T2 model (0.811). Performance varied by MRI field strength. For 1.5T systems, AUCs were 0.50 (CET1), 0.76 (T2), and 0.58 (combined). For 3.0T systems, the corresponding AUCs were 0.61, 0.83, and 0.56. Similarly, analysis by specific scanner model showed AUCs of 0.60 (CET1), 0.83 (T2), and 0.53 (combined) for one scanner, compared to 0.54, 0.84, and 0.52 for the other. Conclusions Combining CET1 with T2 improves prediction performance for pituitary macroadenoma consistency. However, the T2 model demonstrates greater stability across different equipment than either the CET1 or combined models.
Keywords: Radiomics, Pituitary macroadenoma, Hierarchical analysis, Consistency, Combined model
Received: 04 Dec 2024; Accepted: 12 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zou, Li, Yao, Liu and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Yang Liu, Department of Neurosurgery, The Third Hospital of Mianyang (Sichuan Mental Health Center), Mianyang, China
Jie Zhang, Department of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Mianyang (Sichuan Mental Health Center), Mianyang, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.