| Literature DB >> 31803608 |
Longfei Li1,2, Wei Mu2, Yaning Wang3, Zhenyu Liu2, Zehua Liu1,2, Yu Wang3, Wenbin Ma3, Ziren Kong3, Shuo Wang2, Xuezhi Zhou2,4, Wei Wei2,4,5, Xin Cheng6, Yusong Lin1,7, Jie Tian2,4,8,9.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to analyze 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) images via the radiomic method to develop a model and validate the potential value of features reflecting glioma metabolism for predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genotype and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET; glioma; isocitrate dehydrogenase; non-invasive prediction; radiomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31803608 PMCID: PMC6869373 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Workflow of the proposed radiomic analysis for non-invasively predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genotype and prognosis in glioma patients.
Clinical characteristics of patients in the training cohort and validation cohort.
| Age (years) | 43.84 ± 11.11 | 51.30 ± 15.33 | 41.85 ± 9.60 | 50.10 ± 20.43 | 0.92 |
| Sex | 0.26 | ||||
| Male | 21 | 25 | 7 | 21 | |
| Female | 17 | 21 | 6 | 9 | |
| Weight (kg) | 67.99 ± 11.78 | 66.44 ± 14.72 | 69.00 ± 12.18 | 67.83 ± 13.38 | 0.67 |
| Metabolism | 0.42 | ||||
| Cystic | 31 | 24 | 10 | 15 | |
| Solid | 7 | 22 | 3 | 15 | |
| SUVmax | 10.32 ± 5.54 | 10.24 ± 5.12 | 10.09 ± 5.53 | 9.03 ± 4.02 | 0.33 |
| SUVmean | 4.48 ± 2.38 | 4.54 ± 1.86 | 3.80 ± 1.99 | 3.89 ± 1.89 | 0.09 |
IDH, isocitrate dehydrogenase; IDH-mt, IDH mutant; IDH-wt, IDH wild-type; SUV, standard uptake value.
Chi-Square or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate, were used to compare the differences in categorical variables, while independent sample t-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the differences in continuous variables.
Age, Weight, SUV.
Figure 2Forest plot of the 11 selected radiomic features. All features yielded significant differences in IDH mutant and IDH wild-type patients (independent t-test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3The diagnostic performance of these different models in predicting IDH genotype. The first row depicts the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the three models. The second row depicts the distribution of the IDH mutant probabilities predicted by the three models, where the horizontal dash lines are the quartiles. Subgraph (A–C) show the performance of clinical model, radiomic signature and combined model to predict IDH genotype, respectively.
Diagnostic performance of the radiomic signature, clinical model, and combined model.
| Radiomic signature | Training cohort | 0.904 (0.886, 0.923) | 82.1% (79.8, 84.5) | 86.8.1% (83.6, 90.0) | 78.3% (74.9, 81.5) |
| Validation cohort | 0.890 (0.871, 0.924) | 81.4% (79.6, 83.9) | 92.3% (89.4, 95.3) | 80.0% (77.2, 82.9) | |
| Clinical model | Training cohort | 0.705 (0.673, 0.738) | 66.7% (63.8, 69.5) | 71.1% (66.8, 75.3) | 63.0% (59.2, 67.0) |
| Validation cohort | 0.664 (0.631, 0.695) | 65.1% (62.1, 68.0) | 61.5% (56.1, 67.2) | 66.7% (63.0, 70.1) | |
| Combined model | Training cohort | 0.911 (0.895, 0.931) | 79.8% (77.2, 82.3) | 78.9% (75.2, 82.7) | 80.4% (77.0, 83.9) |
| Validation cohort | 0.900 (0.877, 0.923) | 83.7% (81.5, 86.0) | 92.3% (89.3, 95.3) | 80.0% (77.1, 82.9) |
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the curve; ACC, accuracy; SEN, sensitivity; SPE, specificity.
Figure 4Barplots depicting the predictive performance of the combined model. A blue bar with a predicted probability value > cutoff (0.5) indicates that the model successfully identifies the IDH mutant patients; a blue bar with a predicted value < cutoff indicates that the signature fails to identify the IDH mutant patients. For the green bars, the opposite applies.
Figure 5Calibration curves of the combined model in the training and validation cohorts.
Figure 6Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival according to the actual IDH status and the IDH status predicted by the combined model in the training and validation cohorts.
Figure 718F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images of two patients with IDH mutant and IDH wild-type status. The red boundaries in the images were manually delineated as the region of interest. All the clinical characteristics and predicted probabilities of the combined model are presented in the center table.