| Literature DB >> 31681598 |
Fei Wang1, Bin Zhang1,2, Xiangjun Wu3,4, Lizhi Liu5, Jin Fang1, Qiuying Chen1,2, Minmin Li1,2, Zhuozhi Chen1,2, Yueyue Li1, Di Dong3,4, Jie Tian3,4,6, Shuixing Zhang1.
Abstract
Surgical decision-making on advanced laryngeal carcinoma is heavily depended on the identification of preoperative T category (T3 vs. T4), which is challenging for surgeons. A T category prediction radiomics (TCPR) model would be helpful for subsequent surgery. A total of 211 patients with locally advanced laryngeal cancer who had undergone total laryngectomy were randomly classified into the training cohort (n = 150) and the validation cohort (n = 61). We extracted 1,390 radiomic features from the contrast-enhanced computed tomography images. Interclass correlation coefficient and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) analyses were performed to select features associated with pathology-confirmed T category. Eight radiomic features were found associated with preoperative T category. The radiomic signature was constructed by Support Vector Machine algorithm with the radiomic features. We developed a nomogram incorporating radiomic signature and T category reported by experienced radiologists. The performance of the model was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC). The T category reported by radiologists achieved an AUC of 0.775 (95% CI: 0.667-0.883); while the radiomic signature yielded a significantly higher AUC of 0.862 (95% CI: 0.772-0.952). The predictive performance of the nomogram incorporating radiomic signature and T category reported by radiologists further improved, with an AUC of 0.892 (95% CI: 0.811-0.974). Consequently, for locally advanced laryngeal cancer, the TCPR model incorporating radiomic signature and T category reported by experienced radiologists have great potential to be applied for individual accurate preoperative T category. The TCPR model may benefit decision-making regarding total laryngectomy or larynx-preserving treatment.Entities:
Keywords: T category; advanced laryngeal cancer; computed tomography; nomogram; radiomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31681598 PMCID: PMC6803547 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1The workflow of radiomic analysis in the current study. After feature extraction, stable features were selected by LASSO for further analysis. SVM model was used to build radiomic signature. The predictive nomogram was constructed based on the radiomic signature and other predictors.
Patient characteristics in the training and validation cohorts.
| Gender, No (%) | 0.343 | 0.501 | ||||
| Male | 70 (95.9%) | 76 (98.7%) | 33 (94.3%) | 26 (100%) | ||
| Female | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (1.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 0 | ||
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 61.38 ± 8.54 | 63.72 ± 8.97 | 0.157 | 60.23 ± 6.65 | 60.31 ± 10.91 | 0.737 |
| Location, No (%) | 0.022 | 0.579 | ||||
| Supra-glottis | 31 (42.5%) | 21 (27.3%) | 11 (31.4%) | 10 (38.5%) | ||
| Glottis | 40 (54.8%) | 56 (72.7%) | 24 (68.6%) | 16 (61.5%) | ||
| Sub-glottis | 2(2.7%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| T category reported by radiologist, No (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| T3 category | 61 (83.6%) | 29 (37.7%) | 30 (85.7%) | 8 (30.8%) | ||
| T4 category | 12 (16.4%) | 48 (62.3%) | 5 (14.3%) | 18 (69.2%) | ||
Figure 2After initial screening by ICC analysis, feature selection was performed using the LASSO method with a logistic regression model. (A) The model coefficient trendlines of the 1,390 radiomics features. The profile graph was plotted by coefficients against the L1 norm (inverse proportional to log λ = −2.184). (B) Tuning parameter λ in the LASSO model. The parameter λ = 0.220 were selected under the minimum criteria. The vertical line was drawn at the value selected by 10-fold cross-validation, including optimized eight non-zero coefficients.
Diagnostic performance of models in the training and validation cohorts.
| T category reported by radiologist | 0.751 (0.684–0.818) | 0.861 (0.781–0.941) | 0.641 (0.535–0.747) | 0.747 (0.744–0.749) | 0.775 (0.667–0.883) | 0.857 (0.741–0.973) | 0.692 (0.515–0.870) | 0.787 (0.781–0.792) |
| Radiomic signature | 0.850 (0.788–0.912) | 0.792 (0.698–0.885) | 0.782 (0.690–0.874) | 0.787 (0.784–0.789) | 0.862 (0.772–0.952) | 0.743 (0.598–0.888) | 0.808 (0.656–0.959) | 0.770 (0.765–0.776) |
| Combined nomogram | 0.899 (0.850–0.947) | 0.889 (0.816–0.961) | 0.782 (0.690–0.874) | 0.833 (0.832–0.835) | 0.892 (0.811–0.974) | 0.771 (0.632–0.911) | 0.808 (0.656–0.959) | 0.787 (0.781–0.792) |
Figure 3The nomogram of T category diagnostic model. Our radiomics based nomogram was constructed in the training cohort. The radiomic signature, T category reported by radiologist were incorporated as factors (A). The calibration curves showed good agreement between the nomogram-predicted T category and actual T category in the training cohort (B) and validation cohort (C).
Figure 4ROC curves for the nomogram, radiomic signature, and T category reported by radiologist in the training and validation datasets.