Back

Across-Site MRI Prediction of Substantial Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial Cancer: Radiomics versus Deep Learning Features

Di Giovanni, D. A.; Tanaka, A.; Horikoshi, T.; Tsuboyama, T.; Yokota, H.; Zakarian, R.; Matsumoto, Y.; Vallieres, M.; Reinhold, C.

2026-07-16 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.07.14.26358100 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: To compare the cross-site generalization of radiomic features and deep learning embeddings for MRI prediction of substantial lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in endometrial cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective two-center study included 206 women (mean age, 59.8 years) with endometrial cancer who underwent preoperative 3-T MRI from March 2016 to March 2023. Hospital A (n = 130) was used for development and Hospital B (n = 76) for strict external testing. T2-weighted, reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted, and apparent diffusion coefficient images were manually segmented. Radiomic features and seed-pooled embeddings from 3D ResNet18, DenseNet121, and U-NEXtractor were modeled with elastic-net logistic regression or XGBoost. Out-of-fold Platt calibration and sensitivity-targeted thresholds were estimated using development data only. AUCs were summarized with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. Results: External radiomics with elastic-net achieved an AUC of 0.609 (95% CI: 0.464, 0.740) and sensitivity of 0 of 12 (0%). DenseNet121 with elastic-net had the highest external AUC (0.685; 95% CI: 0.538, 0.822) but sensitivity of 3 of 12 (25%). U-NEXtractor with elastic-net detected 10 of 12 positive cases (83.3%) with specificity of 32 of 64 (50.0%) and balanced accuracy of 0.667. XGBoost showed higher apparent development performance but weaker external operating behavior. Conclusion: Under real-world cross-site MRI acquisition shift, DenseNet121 and U-NEXtractor embeddings showed better external generalization than handcrafted radiomic features for substantial LVSI prediction.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 9%
7.2%
3
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
5
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
6
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
7
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.0%
9
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
10
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
11
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.7%
13
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
15
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 28%
1.0%
21
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
26
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.8%
28
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
29
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%