Gu-Wei Ji1,2, Fei-Peng Zhu3, Yu-Dong Zhang3, Xi-Sheng Liu3, Fei-Yun Wu3, Ke Wang1,2, Yong-Xiang Xia1,2, Yao-Dong Zhang1,2, Wang-Jie Jiang1,2, Xiang-Cheng Li4,5, Xue-Hao Wang6,7. 1. Hepatobiliary Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, People's Republic of China. 2. Key Laboratory of Liver Transplantation, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. 4. Hepatobiliary Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, People's Republic of China. drxcli@njmu.edu.cn. 5. Key Laboratory of Liver Transplantation, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. drxcli@njmu.edu.cn. 6. Hepatobiliary Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, People's Republic of China. wangxh@njmu.edu.cn. 7. Key Laboratory of Liver Transplantation, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanjing, People's Republic of China. wangxh@njmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to establish and validate a radiomics model for predicting lymph node (LN) metastasis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and to determine its prognostic value. METHODS: For this retrospective study, a radiomics model was developed in a primary cohort of 103 IHC patients who underwent curative-intent resection and lymphadenectomy. Radiomics features were extracted from arterial phase computed tomography (CT) scans. A radiomics signature was built based on highly reproducible features using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was adopted to establish a radiomics model incorporating radiomics signature and other independent predictors. Model performance was determined by its discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. The model was internally validated in 52 consecutive patients. RESULTS: The radiomics signature comprised eight LN-status-related features and showed significant association with LN metastasis in both cohorts (p < 0.001). A radiomics nomogram that incorporates radiomics signature and CA 19-9 level showed good calibration and discrimination in the primary cohort (AUC 0.8462) and validation cohort (AUC 0.8921). Promisingly, the radiomics nomogram yielded an AUC of 0.9224 in the CT-reported LN-negative subgroup. Decision curve analysis confirmed the clinical utility of this nomogram. High risk for metastasis portended significantly lower overall and recurrence-free survival than low risk for metastasis (both p < 0.001). The radiomics nomogram was an independent preoperative predictor of overall and recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our radiomics model provided a robust diagnostic tool for prediction of LN metastasis, especially in CT-reported LN-negative IHC patients, that may facilitate clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • The radiomics nomogram showed good performance for prediction of LN metastasis in IHC patients, particularly in the CT-reported LN-negative subgroup. • Prognosis of high-risk patients remains dismal after curative-intent resection. • The radiomics model may facilitate clinical decision-making and define patient subsets benefiting most from surgery.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to establish and validate a radiomics model for predicting lymph node (LN) metastasis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and to determine its prognostic value. METHODS: For this retrospective study, a radiomics model was developed in a primary cohort of 103 IHC patients who underwent curative-intent resection and lymphadenectomy. Radiomics features were extracted from arterial phase computed tomography (CT) scans. A radiomics signature was built based on highly reproducible features using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was adopted to establish a radiomics model incorporating radiomics signature and other independent predictors. Model performance was determined by its discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. The model was internally validated in 52 consecutive patients. RESULTS: The radiomics signature comprised eight LN-status-related features and showed significant association with LN metastasis in both cohorts (p < 0.001). A radiomics nomogram that incorporates radiomics signature and CA 19-9 level showed good calibration and discrimination in the primary cohort (AUC 0.8462) and validation cohort (AUC 0.8921). Promisingly, the radiomics nomogram yielded an AUC of 0.9224 in the CT-reported LN-negative subgroup. Decision curve analysis confirmed the clinical utility of this nomogram. High risk for metastasis portended significantly lower overall and recurrence-free survival than low risk for metastasis (both p < 0.001). The radiomics nomogram was an independent preoperative predictor of overall and recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our radiomics model provided a robust diagnostic tool for prediction of LN metastasis, especially in CT-reported LN-negative IHC patients, that may facilitate clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • The radiomics nomogram showed good performance for prediction of LN metastasis in IHC patients, particularly in the CT-reported LN-negative subgroup. • Prognosis of high-risk patients remains dismal after curative-intent resection. • The radiomics model may facilitate clinical decision-making and define patient subsets benefiting most from surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholangiocarcinoma; Decision support techniques; Lymphatic metastasis; Nomogram; Radiomics
Authors: Anthony T Ruys; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Olivier R Busch; Marc R Engelbrecht; Dirk J Gouma; Thomas M van Gulik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mechteld C de Jong; Hari Nathan; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; Andreas Paul; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo Marques; Carlo Pulitano; Eduardo Barroso; Bryan M Clary; Luca Aldrighetti; Cristina R Ferrone; Andrew X Zhu; Todd W Bauer; Dustin M Walters; T Clark Gamblin; Kevin T Nguyen; Ryan Turley; Irinel Popescu; Catherine Hubert; Stephanie Meyer; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Jean-Francois Gigot; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Sun Ah Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Kyoung Bun Lee; Seung Ho Kim; Soon Ho Yoon; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joost J M van Griethuysen; Andriy Fedorov; Chintan Parmar; Ahmed Hosny; Nicole Aucoin; Vivek Narayan; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Steve Pieper; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lukas Müller; Aline Mähringer-Kunz; Simon Johannes Gairing; Friedrich Foerster; Arndt Weinmann; Fabian Bartsch; Lisa-Katharina Heuft; Janine Baumgart; Christoph Düber; Felix Hahn; Roman Kloeckner Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 4.241