| Literature DB >> 29221183 |
Ilke Tunali1,2,3, Olya Stringfield1, Albert Guvenis2, Hua Wang4, Ying Liu4, Yoganand Balagurunathan1, Philippe Lambin5, Robert J Gillies1, Matthew B Schabath6.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to extract features from radial deviation and radial gradient maps which were derived from thoracic CT scans of patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma and assess whether these features are associated with overall survival. We used two independent cohorts from different institutions for training (n= 61) and test (n= 47) and focused our analyses on features that were non-redundant and highly reproducible. To reduce the number of features and covariates into a single parsimonious model, a backward elimination approach was applied. Out of 48 features that were extracted, 31 were eliminated because they were not reproducible or were redundant. We considered 17 features for statistical analysis and identified a final model containing the two most highly informative features that were associated with lung cancer survival. One of the two features, radial deviation outside-border separation standard deviation, was replicated in a test cohort exhibiting a statistically significant association with lung cancer survival (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.97). Additionally, we explored the biological underpinnings of these features and found radial gradient and radial deviation image features were significantly associated with semantic radiological features.Entities:
Keywords: lung adenocarcinoma; quantitative imaging; radial deviation; radial gradient; radiomics
Year: 2017 PMID: 29221183 PMCID: PMC5707077 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Patient characteristics in the training and test cohorts
| Characteristic | Training cohort (N = 61) | Test cohort (N = 47) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 65 | 20 | (32.8) | 25 | (53.2) |
| ≥ 65 | 41 | (67.2) | 22 | (46.8) |
| Female | 30 | (49.2) | 22 | (46.8) |
| Male | 31 | (50.8) | 25 | (53.2) |
| I and II | 44 | (72.1) | 32 | (68.1) |
| III and IV | 17 | (27.9) | 15 | (31.9) |
| 19.5 | (29.0) | 52.4 | (130.0) | |
| 31.6 | (13.8) | 38.0 | (21.5) | |
| 33.5 | 32.0 | |||
| | ||||
| 120 | 57 | (93.4) | 40 | (85.1) |
| 130 or 140 | 4 | (6.6) | 7 | (14.9) |
| | ||||
| A,B | 0 | (0) | 23 | (48.9) |
| B30s,B60f,B70s | 2 | (3.3) | 5 | (10.7) |
| B30f | 8 | (13.1) | 0 | (0) |
| B40f | 19 | (31.2) | 15 | (31.9) |
| B41f | 21 | (34.4) | 0 | (0) |
| Other | 11 | (18.0) | 4 | (8.5) |
| | ||||
| 1.5 mm | 0 | (0) | 2 | (4.3) |
| 2.0 mm | 8 | (13.1) | 13 | (27.7) |
| 2.5 mm | 40 | (65.6) | 29 | (61.7) |
| 3.0 mm | 13 | (21.3) | 3 | (6.3) |
| | ||||
| < 0.6926 | 20 | (32.8) | 6 | (12.8) |
| ≥ 0.6926 to < 0.7785 | 20 | (32.8) | 4 | (8.5) |
| ≥ 0.7785 | 21 | (34.4) | 37 | (78.7) |
Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival in the training and test cohorts
| Covariate | Training cohort N = 61 | Test cohort N = 47 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log-rank P-value1 | Univariable model2 OR (95% CI) | P-value | Multivariable model3 OR (95% CI) | P-value | Multivariable model4 OR (95% CI) | P-value | Multivariable model5 OR (95% CI) | P-value | Multivariable model6 OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| 0.084 | 1.92 (0.90 - 4.11) | 0.092 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | |
| 0.061 | 0.48 (0.22 - 1.06) | 0.068 | 0.75 (0.28 - 2.03) | 0.575 | 0.48 (0.17 - 1.37) | 0.172 | |||||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ||||
| 0.071 | 2.00 (0.92 - 4.34) | 0.078 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | |
| 0.439 | 1.38 (0.60 - 3.16) | 0.444 | . | . | 0.83 (0.34 - 2.05) | 0.690 | . | . | |||
| 0.694 | 1.16 (0.54 - 2.49) | 0.696 | . | . | 1.05 (0.47 - 2.35) | 0.906 | . | . | 1.43 (0.53 – 3.82) | 0.476 | |
| 0.085 | 1.95 (0.90 - 4.23) | 0.093 | . | . | 2.14 (0.91 - 5.03) | 0.082 | . | . | |||
| 2.23 (1.00 - 4.97) | 0.051 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ||
SD = standard deviation; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval
Bold values are statistically significant.
1Log-rank p-value for each covariate for overall survival right censored at 5-years. The radiomic features were dichotomized at the median value and the clinical covariates were dichotomized based on Table 1. The univariable analyses were based on 62 patients. But, due to missing patient data (age and sex), the total sample size for the multivariable analyses was 61 patients.
2The independent main effect ORs for each covariate
3The ORs for the two image features in a single model following backward elimination that considered all features and tumor volume.
4The ORs for both image features identified from backward elimination adjusted for clinical covariates.
5The ORs for from the two image features identified in training cohort from backward elimination
6The ORs for both image features identified from backward elimination in training cohort adjusted for clinical covariates
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the following features
(A) Radial gradient border standard deviation in the training cohort. (B) Radial gradient outside-tumor separation mean in the training cohort. (C) Radial deviation outside-border separation standard deviation in the training cohort. (D) Radial gradient outside-border separation standard deviation (2D) in the training cohort. (E) Radial deviation tumor standard deviation in the training cohort. (F) For the combination of radial gradient outside-tumor separation mean (RGOTSM) and radial deviation outside-border separation standard deviation (RDOBSSD) features in the training cohort. Hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval is calculated for the entire cohort (HR = 3.65; 95% CI (1.89–7.05)). (G) For the combination of radial gradient outside-tumor separation mean (RGOTSM) and radial deviation outside-border separation standard deviation (RDOBSSD) features in the test cohort.
Demographics and imaging parameters by image features in training cohort
| Covariate | Radial gradient outside-tumor separation mean | Radial deviation outside-border separation SD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | HIGH | P- Value | LOW | HIGH | P- Value | |
| Female | 14 (45.2) | 16 (53.3) | 0.612 | 13 (43.3) | 17 (54.8) | 0.446 |
| Male | 17 (54.8) | 14 (46.7) | 17 (56.7) | 14 (45.2) | ||
| < 65 | 8 (25.8) | 12 (40.0) | 0.283 | 8 (26.7) | 12 (38.7) | 0.416 |
| ≥ 65 | 23 (74.2) | 18 (60.0) | 22 (73.3) | 19 (61.3) | ||
| I/II | 21 (67.8) | 23 (77.4) | 0.570 | 23 (77.4) | 21 (67.7) | 0.570 |
| III/IV | 10 (32.2) | 7 (22.6) | 7 (22.6) | 10 (32.3) | ||
| 37.4% | 65.3% | 0.061 | 34.9% | 67.7% | ||
| 120 | 28 (90.3) | 29 (96.7) | 0.612 | 26 (86.7) | 31 (100.0) | 0.053 |
| 130 or 140 | 3 (9.7) | 1 (3.3) | 4 (13.3) | 0 (0) | ||
| A,B | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.270 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.700 |
| B30s,B60f,B70s | 2 (6.7) | 0(0) | 1(3.2) | 1(3.3) | ||
| B30f | 6 (20.0) | 2 (6.4) | 3 (9.7) | 5 (16.7) | ||
| B40f | 7 (23.3) | 12 (38.7) | 12 (38.7) | 7 (23.3) | ||
| B41f | 10 (33.3) | 11 (35.5) | 9 (29.0) | 12 (40.0) | ||
| Other | 5 (16.7) | 6 (19.4) | 6 (19.4) | 5 (16.7) | ||
| 1.5 mm | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.189 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.861 |
| 2.0 mm | 5 (16.1) | 3 (10.0) | 3 (10.0) | 5 (16.1) | ||
| 2.5 mm | 17 (54.8) | 23 (76.7) | 20 (66.7) | 20 (64.5) | ||
| 3.0 mm | 9 (29.1) | 4 (13.3) | 7 (23.3) | 6 (19.4) | ||
| < 0.6926 mm | 7 (22.6) | 13 (43.3) | 0.146 | 7 (23.3) | 13 (41.9) | 0.172 |
| ≥ 0.6926 and < 0.7785 mm | 10 (32.3) | 10 (33.3) | 13 (43.3) | 7 (22.6) | ||
| > 0.7785 mm | 14 (45.1) | 7 (23.4) | 10 (33.4) | 11 (35.5) | ||
1Numbers inside parenthesis are the percentage values.
Association between semantic features and radial gradient and radial deviation features
| Feature No. | Feature name | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absent | Present | P- Value | |||
| LOW | 27 (60.0) | 4 (23.5) | |||
| HIGH | 18 (40.0) | 13 (76.5) | |||
| LOW | 28 (62.2) | 3 (17.7) | |||
| HIGH | 17 (37.8) | 14 (82.3) | |||
| LOW | 13 (81.3) | 8 (42.1) | 10 (37.0) | ||
| HIGH | 3 (18.7) | 11 (57.9) | 17 (63.0) | ||
| LOW | 4 (25.0) | 9 (47.4) | 18 (66.7) | ||
| HIGH | 12 (75.0) | 10 (52.6) | 9 (33.3) | ||
| LOW | 4 (25.0) | 14 (73.7) | 13 (48.2) | ||
| HIGH | 12 (75.0) | 5 (26.3) | 14 (51.8) | ||
1Tumor with neither a well or poorly-defined border.
2This feature was replicated and found to be statistically significantly associated with survival in both the training cohort and test cohort.
Figure 2Volume of interests (VOI) for two lung cancer patients with extreme differences in clinical outcomes
Radial deviation image features for the corresponding VOIs for these lung cancer patients. The top row (A) is a tumor of a patient (Patient ID [PID]: 33) who deceased after 9 months and the second row (B) is a patient (PID: 75) with who had an ongoing survival after 60 months.
Figure 3Cartoon image of the four tumor masks
The region inside the black line is the tumor mask, the yellow area is the core mask, the red area is the border mask, and the region outside the black line is the outside mask (combination of the half part of red region and whole blue region).
Figure 4Examples of radial deviation (middle column) and radial gradient (right column) maps
(A) An example of a tumor which yields high contrast to the lung field and a round shape and hence has lower radial deviation angles pointing to the center of mass (PID: 150). (B) The standard deviation of radial deviation around border and outside regions are both high, making the separation value between them small (PID: 144). (C) The tumor shown has a round shape and has low radial deviation angle on border regions near the lung parenchyma but has heterogeneous values on the border to the lung wall (PID: 108). (D) Example tumor with an irregular shape making the radial deviation and radial gradient values heterogeneous (PID: 69).