| Literature DB >> 30689702 |
D Dong1, L Tang2, Z-Y Li3, M-J Fang4, J-B Gao5, X-H Shan6, X-J Ying3, Y-S Sun2, J Fu2, X-X Wang6, L-M Li5, Z-H Li7, D-F Zhang7, Y Zhang3, Z-M Li3, F Shan3, Z-D Bu3, J Tian8, J-F Ji9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occult peritoneal metastasis (PM) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients is highly possible to be missed on computed tomography (CT) images. Patients with occult PMs are subject to late detection or even improper surgical treatment. We therefore aimed to develop a radiomic nomogram to preoperatively identify occult PMs in AGC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 554 AGC patients from 4 centers were divided into 1 training, 1 internal validation, and 2 external validation cohorts. All patients' PM status was firstly diagnosed as negative by CT, but later confirmed by laparoscopy (PM-positive n = 122, PM-negative n = 432). Radiomic signatures reflecting phenotypes of the primary tumor (RS1) and peritoneum region (RS2) were built as predictors of PM from 266 quantitative image features. Individualized nomograms of PM status incorporating RS1, RS2, or clinical factors were developed and evaluated regarding prediction ability.Entities:
Keywords: advanced gastric cancer; occult peritoneal metastasis; radiomic nomogram
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30689702 PMCID: PMC6442651 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Oncol ISSN: 0923-7534 Impact factor: 32.976
Figure 1.Radiomics workflow in this study. During the image segmentation, any detectable large blood vessels were excluded from the ROIs.
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohorts
| Characteristic | Training cohort | Internal-validation cohort | External-validation cohort 1 | External-validation cohort 2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM (+) | PM (−) | PM (+) | PM (−) | PM (+) | PM (−) | PM (+) | PM (−) | |||||
| Sex, No. (%) | 0.0897 | 0.1698 | 0.0022 | 0.4991 | ||||||||
| Male | 35 (70.0) | 43 (86.0) | 12 (60.0) | 153 (74.3) | 13 (48.1) | 81 (77.9) | 16 (66.7) | 43 (58.9) | ||||
| Female | 15 (30.0) | 7 (14.0) | 8 (40.0) | 53 (25.7) | 14 (51.9) | 23 (22.1) | 8 (33.3) | 30 (41.1) | ||||
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 59.76 ± 12.71 | 58.12 ± 10.32 | 0.3446 | 57.30 ± 13.63 | 60.34 ± 11.06 | 0.3121 | 55.74 ± 12.82 | 58.54 ± 10.33 | 0.2155 | 61.08 ± 11.59 | 61.74 ± 9.56 | 0.9933 |
| Mild-CT-defined ascites, No. (%) | 0.0040 | 0.0075 | 0.1918 | – | ||||||||
| + | 10 (20.0) | 1 (2.0) | 2 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (11.1) | 3 (2.9) | – | – | ||||
| − | 40 (80.0) | 49 (98.0) | 18 (90.0) | 206 (100.0) | 24 (88.9) | 101 (97.1) | – | – | ||||
| Locations, No. (%) | 0.0071 | 0.0002 | 0.3251 | 0.2997 | ||||||||
| Gastric antrum | 20 (40.0) | 14 (28.0) | 8 (40.0) | 47 (22.8) | 10 (37.0) | 29 (27.9) | 6 (37.5) | 18 (24.7) | ||||
| Gastric body | 15 (30.0) | 16 (32.0) | 4 (20.0) | 66 (32.0) | 7 (25.9) | 32 (30.8) | 2 (12.5) | 27 (37.0) | ||||
| Esophagogastric junction | 7 (14.0) | 19 (38.0) | 4 (20.0) | 91 (44.2) | 6 (22.2) | 36 (34.6) | 3 (18.8) | 11 (15.1) | ||||
| Whole stomach | 8 (16.0) | 1 (2.0) | 4 (20.0) | 2 (1.0) | 4 (14.8) | 7 (6.7) | 5 (31.3) | 17 (23.3) | ||||
| Pathology, No. (%) | 0.0838 | 0.9875 | 0.0271 | 0.7199 | ||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 40 (80.0) | 46 (92.0) | 17 (85.0) | 181 (87.9) | 21 (77.8) | 97 (93.3) | 14 (93.3) | 66 (90.4) | ||||
| Signet ring and mucinous cell carcinoma | 10 (20.0) | 4 (8.0) | 3 (15.0) | 25 (12.1) | 6 (22.2) | 7 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | 7 (9.6) | ||||
| Differentiation, No. (%) | 0.8412 | 0.0373 | 0.0002 | 0.2959 | ||||||||
| Poorly differentiated | 27 (54.0) | 26 (52.0) | 14 (70.0) | 93 (45.1) | 21 (77.8) | 38 (36.5) | 11 (73.3) | 43 (58.9) | ||||
| Moderately and well differentiated | 23 (46.0) | 24 (48.0) | 6 (30.0) | 113 (54.9) | 6 (22.2) | 66 (63.5) | 4 (26.7) | 30 (41.1) | ||||
| Lauren type, No. (%) | 0.0019 | 0.0149 | 0.0846 | – | ||||||||
| Intestinal type and mixed type | 24 (48.0) | 39 (78.0) | 9 (45.0) | 147 (31.6) | 10 (37.0) | 59 (56.7) | – | – | ||||
| Diffuse type | 26 (52.0) | 11 (22.0) | 11 (55.0) | 59 (28.6) | 17 (63.0) | 45 (43.3) | – | – | ||||
| Borrmann type, No. (%) | 0.0158 | 0.0002 | 0.0026 | – | ||||||||
| Types 2 and 3 | 34 (68.0) | 44 (88.0) | 15 (75.0) | 203 (98.5) | 20 (74.1) | 99 (95.2) | – | – | ||||
| Type 4 | 16 (32.0) | 6 (12.0) | 5 (25.0) | 3 (1.5) | 7 (25.9) | 5 (4.8) | – | – | ||||
| CEA, No. (%) | 0.3618 | 0.4361 | 0.8873 | 0.6039 | ||||||||
| Normal | 35 (70.0) | 39 (78.0) | 18 (90.0) | 165 (80.1) | 25 (92.6) | 89 (91.8) | 9 (69.2) | 53 (80.3) | ||||
| Elevated | 15 (30.0) | 11 (22.0) | 2 (10.0) | 41 (19.9) | 2 (7.4) | 8 (8.2) | 4 (30.8) | 13 (19.7) | ||||
| CA19-9, No. (%) | 0.1059 | 0.7711 | 0.8902 | 0.4543 | ||||||||
| Normal | 34 (68.0) | 41 (82.0) | 16 (80.0) | 168 (81.6) | 23 (85.2) | 85 (88.5) | 12 (92.3) | 48 (78.7) | ||||
| Elevated | 16 (32.0) | 9 (18.0) | 4 (20.0) | 38 (18.4) | 4 (14.8) | 11 (11.5) | 1 (8.7) | 13 (21.3) | ||||
P value was derived from the univariable association analyses between each characteristic and PM status.
SD, standard deviation; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9.
P value < 0.1.
Variables and coefficients of radiomic nomogram and clinical model
| Variable | Radiomic nomogram | Clinical model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | β | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |||
| Intercept | −6.972 | −1.051 | ||||
| Mild CT-defined ascites (+ versus −) | – | – | – | 2.448 | 11.560 (1.321–101.170) | 0.0270 |
| Lauren (diffuse versus intestinal/mixed) | 2.704 | 14.939 (2.091–106.720) | 0.0070 | 1.312 | 3.713 (1.435–9.611) | 0.0069 |
| Borrmann (type 4 versus type 2/type 3) | – | – | – | 1.262 | 3.532 (1.150–10.848) | 0.0275 |
| RS1 score (per 0.1 increase) | 0.489 | 1.630 (1.224–2.172) | 0.0008 | – | – | – |
| RS2 score (per 0.1 increase) | 0.739 | 2.094 (1.509–2.905) | <0.0001 | – | – | – |
RS, radiomic signature; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2.Development and performance of nomogram. (A) Nomogram based on radiomic signatures and clinical factors. Calibration curves of the radiomic nomogram in the training cohort (B) and validation cohorts (C).
Performance evaluation of the radiomic models
| Index | Training cohort | Internal-validation cohort | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS1 | RS2 | Clinical model | Nomogram | RS1 | RS2 | Clinical model | Nomogram | |
| TP | 36 | 38 | 19 | 45 | 17 | 15 | 4 | 17 |
| TN | 40 | 41 | 49 | 41 | 157 | 179 | 204 | 179 |
| FN | 14 | 12 | 31 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 3 |
| FP | 10 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 49 | 27 | 2 | 27 |
| Sensitivity | 0.720 | 0.760 | 0.380 | 0.900 | 0.850 | 0.750 | 0.200 | 0.850 |
| Specificity | 0.800 | 0.820 | 0.980 | 0.820 | 0.762 | 0.869 | 0.990 | 0.869 |
| AUC | 0.854 | 0.906 | 0.694 | 0.958 | 0.868 | 0.873 | 0.650 | 0.941 |
| (0.781–0.926) | (0.850–0.961) | (0.598–0.790) | (0.923–0.993) | (0.800–0.936) | (0.7750.970) | (0.523–0.777) | (0.904–0.977) | |
TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FN, false negative; FP, false positive; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval; RS1, radiomic signature from the primary tumor; RS2, radiomic signature from the peritoneal region.
Figure 3.Decision curve analysis for radiomic nomogram and signatures.