| Literature DB >> 31937372 |
Peng Lin1,2, Peng-Fei Yang3,4, Shi Chen1,5, You-You Shao6, Lei Xu3, Yan Wu1,2, Wangsiyuan Teng1,2, Xing-Zhi Zhou1,2, Bing-Hao Li1,2, Chen Luo3, Lei-Ming Xu7, Mi Huang8, Tian-Ye Niu9,10, Zhao-Ming Ye11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The difficulty of assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response preoperatively may hinder personalized-medicine strategies that depend on the results from pathological examination.Entities:
Keywords: CT; Chemotherapy response evaluation; Delta-radiomics; High-grade osteosarcoma; Machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31937372 PMCID: PMC6958668 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0283-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1The radiomics schematic depiction of this study
Characteristics at time of diagnosis in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma
| Characteristic | Training cohort ( | Independent validation cohort ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pGR ( | Non-pGR ( | pGR ( | Non-pGR ( | |||
| Age, years | ||||||
| Median (range) | 16 (4.6–43) | 14 (4–46) | 0.3939 | 15 (8–39) | 18 (7–44) | 0.6123 |
| ≤ 15 y | 27 | 45 | 13 | 12 | ||
| > 15 y | 30 | 35 | 12 | 17 | ||
| Gender | 1 | 0.5852 | ||||
| Male | 34 | 47 | 14 | 13 | ||
| Female | 23 | 33 | 11 | 16 | ||
| Location of primary tumor | 0.3447 | 0.8041 | ||||
| Humerus | 11 | 8 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Femur | 27 | 45 | 14 | 17 | ||
| Tibia and fibula | 17 | 20 | 8 | 8 | ||
| Radius and ulna | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Others | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Stage at diagnosis | 1 | 0.3062 | ||||
| Localized | 47 | 66 | 20 | 27 | ||
| Metastatic | 10 | 14 | 5 | 2 | ||
| Pathologic subtype | 0.3055 | 0.332 | ||||
| Osteoblastic | 46 | 55 | 20 | 19 | ||
| Chondroblastic | 3 | 13 | 1 | 5 | ||
| Fibroblastic | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Telangiectatic | 3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Others | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Type of surgery | 0.02487* | 1 | ||||
| Limb salvage | 55 | 66 | 24 | 27 | ||
| Amputation | 2 | 14 | 1 | 2 | ||
| New pulmonary metastasis | 1 | 0.9402 | ||||
| Yes | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | ||
| No | 55 | 76 | 24 | 29 | ||
| Chemotherapy regimens | 0.7224 | 0.4406 | ||||
| 1MTX, DDP and ADM | 42 | 58 | 17 | 22 | ||
| 2MTX, IFO,DDP and ADM | 12 | 15 | 8 | 6 | ||
| 3MTX,IFO, DDP and ADM | 3 | 7 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Radiomics score | 4.4E-4(−1.1–0.72) | −0.55(−2.9–0.32) | 2.1E-14 | 0.030(−0.58–0.71) | −0.31(−2.1–0.34) | 2.4E-5 |
Note: Individual clinical factors were analyzed for significant differences using a nonparametric test. *P < 0.05 indicates a significant difference. Ages and radiomics scores are represented as [Median (range)]. Methotrexate (MTX), Ifosfamide (IFO), Cisplatin (DDP) and Doxorubicin (ADM)
Fig. 2Ten-fold cross-validation results using the LASSO method. (a) The binomial deviance metrics (the y-axis) were plotted against log(λ) (the bottom x-axis). The top x-axis indicates the number of predictors with the given log(λ). Red dots indicate the average AUC for each model at the given λ, and vertical bars through the red dots show the upper and lower values of the binomial deviance in the cross-validation process. The vertical black lines define the optimal λ, where the model provides its best fit to the data. As a result, the optimal λ of 0.1047237, with log(λ) = − 2.256430, was selected. (b) The LASSO coefficient profiles of the 45 radiomic features are depicted. The vertical line was plotted at the given λ. For the optimal λ, eight features with non-zero coefficients were selected
Fig. 3The predictive performance of the radiomics signature for each patient in training (a) and validation (b) sets (95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under curve). The radiomics signature for each patient in training (c) and validation (d) sets. Blue dots show signature values for non-pGR patients, while red triangles indicate values for pGR patients. The dotted line shows the best cutoff values calculated by Youden test, which is − 0.251 for the training dataset
Fig. 4(a) The radiomics nomogram incorporating the radiomics signature and NPM. The ROC curves for the radiomics nomogram in training (b) and validation (c) sets
Fig. 5The calibration curve of the developed radiomics nomogram in the training dataset (a) and validation dataset (b). Calibration curves depict the calibration of each model according to the agreement between the predicted probability of pathologic good response (pGR) and actual outcomes of the pGR rate. The y-axis represents the actual rate of pGR. The x-axis represents the predicted probability of pGR. The diagonal black line represents an ideal prediction. The red line represents the performance of the radiomics nomogram, of which a closer fit to the diagonal black line represents a better prediction. Decision curve analysis (DCA) for the radiomics nomogram in both training (c) and validation cohorts (d). The y-axis indicates the net benefit; x-axis indicates threshold probability. The red line represents the radiomics nomogram. The gray line represents the hypothesis that all patients showed pGR. The black line represents the hypothesis that no patients showed pGR