| Literature DB >> 32000852 |
Ke Li1, Qiandong Yao2, Jingjing Xiao3, Meng Li3, Jiali Yang4, Wenjing Hou1, Mingshan Du1, Kang Chen1, Yuan Qu1, Lian Li1, Jing Li1, Xianqi Wang1, Haoran Luo1, Jia Yang5, Zhuoli Zhang5, Wei Chen6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We developed a computational model integrating clinical data and imaging features extracted from contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images, to predict lymph node (LN) metastasis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Entities:
Keywords: CT; Lymph node metastasis; Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32000852 PMCID: PMC6993448 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-0288-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study population, with exclusion criteria
Fig. 2Tumor segmentation on CT images with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and heat map. a Segmentation on axial image slice-by-slice (yellow regions). b Three-dimensional view of the tumor. c IoU scores of each patient. d Heat map representation of radiomics features on the x-axis and cases on the y-axis. Right color bar represents color coding of Z-scores of each radiomics feature on 118 cases, in the primary cohort
Clinical characteristics of patients in the primary cohort and validation cohort
| Characteristic | Primary Cohort | p | Validation Cohort | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LN Metastasis (+) | LN Metastasis (−) | LN Metastasis (+) | LN Metastasis (−) | |||
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 58.75 ± 10.07 | 56.95 ± 10.44 | 0.348 | 59.12 ± 9.69 | 57.75 ± 10.13 | 0.667 |
| Gender, No. (%) | 0.647 | 0.767 | ||||
| Male | 35 (67.3) | 47 (71.2) | 10 (58.8) | 13 (54.2) | ||
| Female | 17 (33.7) | 19 (28.8) | 7 (41.2) | 11 (45.8) | ||
| CEA level, No (%) | 0.185 | 0.273 | ||||
| Normal | 41 (78.8) | 58 (87.9) | 10 (58.8) | 18 (75.0) | ||
| Abnormal | 11 (21.2) | 8 (12.1) | 7 (41.2) | 6 (25.0) | ||
| CA19–9 level, No (%) | 0.116 | 0.529 | ||||
| Normal | 13 (25.0) | 9 (13.6) | 5 (29.4) | 5 (20.8) | ||
| Abnormal | 39 (75.0) | 57 (86.4) | 12 (70.6) | 19 (79.2) | ||
| TBIL level, No (%) | 0.281 | 0.729 | ||||
| Normal | 19 (36.5) | 18 (27.3) | 4 (23.5) | 8 (33.3) | ||
| Abnormal | 33 (63.5) | 48 (72.7) | 13 (76.5) | 16 (66.7) | ||
| Lesion location, No (%) | 0.595 | 0.262 | ||||
| Head | 43 (82.7) | 52 (78.8) | 15 (88.2) | 17 (70.8) | ||
| Body or tail | 9 (17.3) | 14 (21.2) | 2 (11.8) | 7 (29.2) | ||
| CT-reported LN status, No (%) | 0.020* | 0.019* | ||||
| LN- positive | 34 (65.4) | 29 (43.9) | 12 (70.6) | 8 (33.3) | ||
| LN- negative | 18 (34.6) | 37 (56.1) | 5 (29.4) | 16 (66.7) | ||
| Pathological grade | 0.008* | 0.022* | ||||
| Well | 8 (15.4) | 22 (33.3) | 3 (17.6) | 11 (45.8) | ||
| Moderately | 17 (32.7) | 24 (36.4) | 6 (35.3) | 9 (37.5) | ||
| Poorly | 27 (51.9) | 20 (30.3) | 8 (47.1) | 4 (16.7) | ||
Abbreviations: CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19–9 cancer antigen-19-9, TBIL total bilirubin, CT computed tomography, LN lymph node, SD standard deviation
* highlights the p values that are smaller than 0.05
Fig. 3Radiomics feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) binary logistic regression model. a Optimal parameter (lambda) selection in the LASSO model used 10-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The partial likelihood deviance (binomial deviance) curve was plotted versus log (lambda). Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values using the minimum criteria and the 1 SE of the minimum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). b LASSO coefficient profiles of the 2041 features. A coefficient profile plot was produced against the log (lambda) sequence. A vertical line was drawn at the value selected, using 10-fold cross-validation, where optimal lambda resulted in 15 features with nonzero coefficients. c ROC curves of radiomics signatures in primary cohorts. d Validation cohort
List of selected feature parameters for establishing the radiomics signature
| Feature name and intercept | Coefficient |
|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.353 |
| original_firstorder_Skewness | −0.833 |
| log-sigma-1-0-mm-3D_glszm_LowGrayLevelZoneEmphasis | 0.404 |
| log-sigma-1-0-mm-3D_ngtdm_Busyness | 0.379 |
| wavelet-LLL_glcm_JointAverage | −14.890 |
| wavelet-LHL_glszm_SmallAreaLowGrayLevelEmphasis | −0.127 |
| wavelet-LHH_firstorder_Skewness | 1.068 |
| wavelet-LHH_glcm_Imc1 | 9.466 |
| wavelet-LHH_glcm_Imc2 | 2.352 |
| wavelet-LHH_glszm_SmallAreaEmphasis | −0.462 |
| wavelet-HLL_firstorder_Maximum | −4.677 |
| exponential_firstorder_Energy | −0.937 |
| exponential_glszm_SizeZoneNonUniformity | 3.390 |
| gradient_glcm_Idn | 2.041 |
| gradient_glszm_SmallAreaLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 0.091 |
| lbp-3D-k_glszm_SmallAreaLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 3.205 |
Multivariable logistic regression analyses
| Intercept and variable | Combined prediction model in the primary cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p | |
| Intercept | −0.461 | – | 0.499 |
| Radiomic signature | 3.533 | 34.233 (7.344~159.575) | < 0.001 |
| CT-reported LN status | 1.130 | 3.095 (0.941~10.174) | 0.063 |
| Pathological grade | 0.473 | 1.605 (0.755~3.412) | 0.219 |
Fig. 4ROC curves of clinical and combined prediction models in both cohorts; decision curve analysis for the combined prediction model in the primary cohort, and calibration curve analysis for the combined prediction model in both cohorts. a ROC curves of clinical and combined prediction models in the primary cohort. b ROC curves of clinical and combined prediction models in the validation cohort. c Decision curve analysis for the nomogram. Nomogram for the combined prediction model in the primary cohort. To use this nomogram, first locate the CT reported LN status, then draw a line straight up to the points axis on the top to get the score associated with negative or positive. Repeat the process for the other covariates (pathological grade and radiomic signatures). Add the score of each covariate together and locate the total score on the total points axis. Next, draw a line straight down to the “probability of LN metastasis” axis at the bottom to obtain the probability. The y-axis measures the net benefit. The blue line represents the nomogram. The gray line represents the assumption that all patients have LN metastases. The thin black line represents the assumption that no patients have LN metastases. The decision curve showed that if the threshold probability of a patient and a doctor is 1 and 89%, respectively, using this nomogram to predict LN metastasis risk adds more benefit than the intervention-all-patients scheme or the intervention-none scheme. d Calibration curve analysis for the combined prediction model in the primary cohort and e validation cohort. The x-axis represents the predicted LN metastasis risk. The y-axis represents the actual diagnosed LN metastases. The diagonal dotted line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The solid line represents the performance of the combined prediction model, of which a closer fit to the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction
Fig. 5Nomogram for the combined prediction model in the primary cohort