| Literature DB >> 30642750 |
Lu Zhang1, Di Dong2, Hailin Li3, Jie Tian2, Fusheng Ouyang4, Xiaokai Mo5, Bin Zhang6, Xiaoning Luo1, Zhouyang Lian5, Shufang Pei5, Yuhao Dong5, Wenhui Huang5, Changhong Liang5, Jing Liu5, Shuixing Zhang7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based model for assessment of the risk of individual distant metastasis (DM) before initial treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).Entities:
Keywords: Distant metastasis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Prognostic tool; Risk assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30642750 PMCID: PMC6413336 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Flow diagram showing the development of a distant metastasis (DM) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI)-based model (DMMM) for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The steps include (1) MR image acquisition and segmentation, (2) extraction of features using the PyRadiomics platform, and (3) selection of features and development of the model.
Characteristics of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in the training and validation cohorts. Statistical comparisons between the training and validation cohorts were computed using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables. A P-value of <0.05 indicates a significant difference.
| Patients | Training cohort (n = 123) | Validation cohort ( | P value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | Non-DM | DM | non-DM | ||||
| Age (years) | 0.914 | 0.800 | |||||
| <43 | 93 | 26 | 40 | 7 | 20 | ||
| ≥43 | 83 | 23 | 34 | 5 | 21 | ||
| Sex | 0.435 | 0.806 | |||||
| Male | 135 | 40 | 56 | 8 | 31 | ||
| Female | 41 | 9 | 18 | 4 | 10 | ||
| T stage | 0.306 | 0.160 | |||||
| T1 | 14 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 5 | ||
| T2 | 39 | 14 | 17 | 2 | 6 | ||
| T3 | 79 | 19 | 31 | 4 | 25 | ||
| T4 | 44 | 15 | 19 | 5 | 5 | ||
| N stage | 0.016 | 0.448 | |||||
| N0 | 19 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 5 | ||
| N1 | 56 | 12 | 30 | 4 | 10 | ||
| N2 | 78 | 25 | 27 | 4 | 22 | ||
| N3 | 23 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 4 | ||
| TNM Stage | 0.027 | 0.005 | |||||
| I | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| II | 21 | 3 | 16 | 2 | 0 | ||
| III | 91 | 25 | 33 | 3 | 30 | ||
| IVA | 38 | 12 | 18 | 3 | 5 | ||
| IVB | 23 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Histology | 0.525 | – | |||||
| Differentiated keratinising | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Differentiated non-keratinising | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Undifferentiated non-keratinising | 172 | 48 | 71 | 12 | 41 | ||
| EBV DNA (copies/mL) | <0.001 | 0.446 | |||||
| <3245 | 88 | 15 | 48 | 4 | 21 | ||
| ≥3245 | 88 | 34 | 26 | 8 | 20 | ||
| VCA-IgA | 0.144 | 0.583 | |||||
| <1:160 | 69 | 26 | 24 | 3 | 16 | ||
| ≥1:160 | 107 | 23 | 40 | 9 | 25 | ||
| EA-IgA | 0.268 | 0.800 | |||||
| <1:20 | 90 | 29 | 35 | 5 | 21 | ||
| ≥1:20 | 86 | 20 | 39 | 7 | 20 | ||
| CRP concentration (mg/L) | 0.882 | 0.687 | |||||
| <2.06 | 87 | 23 | 37 | 5 | 22 | ||
| ≥2.06 | 89 | 26 | 37 | 7 | 19 | ||
| LDH concentration (U/L) | 0.553 | 0.864 | |||||
| <185 | 103 | 27 | 46 | 6 | 24 | ||
| ≥185 | 73 | 22 | 28 | 6 | 17 | ||
| Alkaline phosphatase (U/L) | 0.325 | 0.771 | |||||
| <89 | 113 | 28 | 50 | 9 | 26 | ||
| ≥89 | 63 | 21 | 24 | 3 | 15 | ||
| Albumin (g/L) | 0.827 | 0.775 | |||||
| <44 | 79 | 21 | 29 | 7 | 22 | ||
| ≥44 | 97 | 28 | 45 | 5 | 19 | ||
| Alanine aminotransferase (U/L) | 0.98 | 0.771 | |||||
| <31 | 121 | 33 | 50 | 9 | 29 | ||
| ≥31 | 55 | 16 | 24 | 3 | 12 | ||
| Aspartate aminotransferase (U/L) | 0.525 | 0.930 | |||||
| <25 | 125 | 33 | 55 | 9 | 28 | ||
| ≥25 | 51 | 16 | 19 | 3 | 13 | ||
| WBC, ×109/L | 0.713 | 0.941 | |||||
| <7.13 | 91 | 24 | 40 | 6 | 21 | ||
| ≥7.13 | 85 | 25 | 34 | 6 | 20 | ||
| Neutrophil, ×109/L | 0.906 | 0.965 | |||||
| <4.73 | 101 | 29 | 43 | 6 | 23 | ||
| ≥4.73 | 75 | 20 | 31 | 6 | 18 | ||
| Lymphocytes, ×109/L | 0.656 | 0.639 | |||||
| <1.90 | 96 | 28 | 38 | 8 | 22 | ||
| ≥1.90 | 80 | 21 | 36 | 4 | 19 | ||
| Platelet counts, ×109/L | 0.185 | 0.062 | |||||
| <217 | 88 | 28 | 32 | 3 | 25 | ||
| ≥217 | 88 | 21 | 42 | 9 | 16 | ||
| Hemoglobin concentration (g/L) | 0.966 | 0.869 | |||||
| <140 | 74 | 21 | 32 | 5 | 16 | ||
| ≥140 | 102 | 28 | 42 | 7 | 25 | ||
| Concurrent chemoradiotherapy | 0.838 | 0.375 | |||||
| Yes | 153 | 43 | 64 | 9 | 37 | ||
| No | 23 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 4 | ||
Fig. 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for a newly developed distant metastasis (DM) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI)-based model (DMMM) (a, b), radiomic features (c, d), and clinical variables (e, f) in the training and validation cohorts of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The ROC curves of DMMM is outperformed than radiomic features and clinical variables alone in both the training (AUC, 0.827 vs. 0.816 vs. 0.652) and validation (AUC, 0.792 vs. 0.713 vs. 0.660) cohorts.
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier curves for 5-year survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. For patients with high and low risks of distant metastasis (DM), stratified by our newly developed DM magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI)-based model (DMMM). The 5-year survival rate is 12% for the high-risk group and 26% for the low-risk group, with a significant difference between groups (P < 0.001). b. For high-risk and low-risk patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (stratified using DMMM). The 5-year survival rate of high-risk patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy is significantly lower than that of low-risk patients who received the same treatment (P < 0.001). The log-rank test was used to calculate P-values.
Fig. 4Nomogram for the prediction of distant metastasis (DM) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (a) Calibration curves of nomograms developed in the training (b) and validation (c) cohorts.
Fig. 5Decision curve analysis for our newly developed distant metastasis (DM) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI)-based model (DMMM) for the prediction of DM in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The y-axis measures the net benefit. The red line represents DMMM with integrated radiomic features and clinical variables. The net benefit is calculated by adding the benefits (true-positive results) and subtracting the risks (false-positive results), with the latter weighted by a factor related to the harm of an undetected cancer relative to the harm of unnecessary treatment. Our DMMM shows the highest net benefit when compared with simple strategies [e.g., follow-up of all patients (yellow line) or no patients (horizontal black line)] across the entire range of threshold probabilities at which a patient could choose to undergo follow-up imaging studies. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)