| Literature DB >> 30872763 |
Vivian Y Park1, Kyunghwa Han1, Eunjung Lee2, Eun-Kyung Kim1, Hee Jung Moon1, Jung Hyun Yoon1, Jin Young Kwak3.
Abstract
Patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) would benefit from risk stratification tools that can aid in planning personalized treatment and follow-up. The aim of this study was to develop a conventional ultrasound (US)-based radiomics signature to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with conventional PTC. Imaging features were extracted from the pretreatment US images of 768 patients with conventional PTC who were treated between January 2004 and February 2006. The median follow-up period was 117.3 months, with 85 (11.1%) events. A radiomics signature (Rad-score) was generated by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method in Cox regression. The Rad-score was significantly associated with DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.087; P < 0.001), independent of clinicopathologic risk factors. A radiomics model which incorporated the Rad-score demonstrated better performance in the estimation of DFS (C-index: 0.777; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.735, 0.829) than the clinicopathologic model (C-index: 0.721; 95% CI: 0.675, 0.780). In conclusion, radiomics features from pretreatment US may be potential imaging biomarkers for risk stratification in patients with conventional PTC.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30872763 PMCID: PMC6418281 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37748-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient characteristics and pathologic features of the 768 patients with conventional papillary thyroid carcinoma.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| <55 years | 592 (77.1%) |
| ≥55 years | 176 (22.9%) |
| Female | 648 (84.4%) |
| Male | 120 (15.6%) |
| 16 (2–65) | |
| Absent | 311 (40.5%) |
| Present | 457 (59.5%) |
| Absent | 33 (4.3%) |
| Present | 735 (95.7%) |
| 30 (0–200) | |
| No | 757 (98.8%) |
| Yes | 9 (1.2%) |
Univariate analysis between variables and disease-free survival.
| Variables | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| <55 years | 1 | ||
| ≥55 years | 1.354 | 0.844, 2.172 | 0.208 |
|
| |||
| Female | 1 | ||
| Male | 1.479 | 0.879, 2.489 | 0.14 |
|
| 1.042 | 1.022, 1.063 | <0.001 |
|
| |||
| Absent | 1 | ||
| Present | 4.919 | 2.611, 9.267 | <0.001 |
|
| |||
| Absent | 1 | ||
| Present | 2.253 | 1.04, 4.884 | 0.040 |
|
| |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 8.132 | 3.286, 20.12 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.010 | 1.006, 1.013 | <0.001 |
|
| 4.531 | 2.909, 7.056 | <0.001 |
Performance of the clinicopathologic model and radiomics model.
| Variables | Clinicopathologic model | Radiomics model* = Clinicopathologic data + radiomics signature | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | P value | HR | 95% CI | P value | |
|
| ||||||
| <55 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| ≥55 | 1.669 | 1.0296, 2.706 | 0.0377 | 1.495 | 0.921, 2.426 | 0.104 |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Male | 1.205 | 0.6969, 2.084 | 0.5043 | 1.054 | 0.608, 1.829 | 0.851 |
|
| 1.027 | 1.0053, 1.049 | 0.0145 | 1.012 | 0.989, 1.036 | 0.301 |
|
| ||||||
| Absent | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Present | 3.826 | 1.9727, 7.419 | <0.0001 | 3.585 | 1.849, 6.952 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| Absent | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Present | 1.399 | 0.6248, 3.132 | 0.4144 | 1.145 | 0.497, 2.638 | 0.750 |
|
| ||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Yes | 5.78 | 2.2487, 14.858 | 0.0003 | 3.449 | 1.329, 8.950 | 0.011 |
|
| 1.005 | 1.0016, 1.009 | 0.0047 | 1.005 | 1.001, 1.009 | 0.009 |
|
| 3.087 | 1.931, 4.935 | <0.001 | |||
|
| (0.675, 0.780) | 0.777 (0.735, 0.829) | ||||
*The radiomics model integrated the radiomics signature (Rad-score) with clinicopathologic data.
†Difference between the two c-indexes = 0.777−0.721 = 0.056 (bootstrapped 95% CI: 0.023, 0.096).
Figure 1Example of the radiomics feature extraction. (a) Each tumor was first manually segmented on a representative US image (left) and subsequently, the position information of the ROI (middle) was collected and applied to the US image without marking the ROI itself, allowing the ROI to be extracted from the original US image (right). (b) Intensity histogram of the ROI image is shown. First and second order statistics values were calculated for each image. (c) For further feature extraction, the wavelet transform was used. For clearer presentation, the wavelet coefficients were scaled into a range from 0 to 255. From left to right: wavelet decompositions of the original image using LL, LH, HL, and HH, where L and H are low- and high-pass filters in the x- and y-directions, respectively.