| Literature DB >> 33046736 |
Yoshitaka Toyama1, Masatoshi Hotta2, Fuyuhiko Motoi3, Kentaro Takanami4, Ryogo Minamimoto2, Kei Takase4.
Abstract
Patients with pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis, therefore identifying particular tumor characteristics associated with prognosis is important. This study aims to investigate the utility of radiomics with machine learning using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET in patients with pancreatic cancer. We enrolled 161 patients with pancreatic cancer underwent pretreatment FDG-PET/CT. The area of the primary tumor was semi-automatically contoured with a threshold of 40% of the maximum standardized uptake value, and 42 PET features were extracted. To identify relevant PET parameters for predicting 1-year survival, Gini index was measured using random forest (RF) classifier. Twenty-three patients were censored within 1 year of follow-up, and the remaining 138 patients were used for the analysis. Among the PET parameters, 10 features showed statistical significance for predicting overall survival. Multivariate analysis using Cox HR regression revealed gray-level zone length matrix (GLZLM) gray-level non-uniformity (GLNU) as the only PET parameter showing statistical significance. In RF model, GLZLM GLNU was the most relevant factor for predicting 1-year survival, followed by total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The combination of GLZLM GLNU and TLG stratified patients into three groups according to risk of poor prognosis. Radiomics with machine learning using FDG-PET in patients with pancreatic cancer provided useful prognostic information.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33046736 PMCID: PMC7550575 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73237-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient demographics.
| Patients number | 161 |
|---|---|
| Male | 94 (58.4) |
| Female | 67 (41.6) |
| Mean age (years) (SD) | 65.98 (10.13) |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2) (SD) | 22.42 (3.51) |
| Head | 96 (59.6) |
| Body | 41 (25.5) |
| Tail | 24 (14.9) |
| Median tumor size [IQR] | 32.00 [25.00, 41.00] |
| I | 73 (45.3) |
| II | 36 (22.4) |
| III | 24 (14.9) |
| IV | 28 (17.4) |
| 1 | 24 (14.9) |
| 2 | 75 (46.6) |
| 3 | 27 (16.8) |
| 4 | 35 (21.7) |
| Negative | 112 (69.6) |
| Positive | 49 (30.4) |
| Negative | 133 (82.6) |
| Positive | 28 (17.4) |
| Median CA19-9 [IQR] | 166.90 [43.90, 904.70] |
| Median CEA [IQR] | 3.70 [2.00, 6.30] |
| Surgical treatment | 75 (46.6) |
| Non-surgical treatment (chemo and/or radiation) | 84 (53.4) |
SD standardized deviation, BMI body mass index, IQR interquartile range.
*According to the 8th edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumors.
Univariate Cox hazard regression analysis of the clinical characteristics.
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (male) | 1.0 (0.7–1.5) | 0.95 |
| Age (> 60 years) | 1.5 (0.9–2.3) | 0.081 |
| BMI (> 22 kg/m2) | 1.0 (0.7–1.5) | 0.95 |
| Clinical stage (III, IV) | 2.0 (1.3–3.0) | 0.0018 |
| CA19-9 (> 213.6) | 1.5 (0.9–2.6) | 0.16 |
| CEA (> 2.8) | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) | 0.76 |
| Treatment (surgical treatment) | 0.23 (0.15–0.37) | < 0.001 |
Univariate and multivariate Cox hazard ratio regression analyses of PET features that showed statistical significance (p < 0.0018) in Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test.
| PET features (optimal cutoff value) | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
| MTV (> 10.7) | 2.9 (1.6–5.4) | < 0.001 | 0.8 (0.3–2.3) | 0.66 |
| TLG (> 34.6) | 4.4 (2.0–9.6) | < 0.001 | 2.1 (0.7–6.6) | 0.21 |
| SHAPE_Sphercity (< 96.8 × 10–2) | 2.2 (1.4–3.2) | < 0.001 | 1.2 (0.7–2.0) | 0.52 |
| SHAPE_Compacity (< 16.1 × 10–2) | 2.3 (1.5–3.7) | < 0.001 | 1.0 (0.5–1.9) | 0.97 |
| NGLDM_Coarseness (< 16.3 × 10–3) | 2.6 (1.7–4.1) | < 0.001 | 1.43 (0.7–2.8) | 0.29 |
| GLRLM_LGRE (< 16.2 × 10–3) | 5.4 (1.3–22.0) | 0.018 | ||
| GLRLM_RLNU (> 21.2 × 10) | 4.4 (2.0–9.5) | < 0.001 | 2.1 (0.5–8.4) | 0.31 |
| GLRLM_SRLGE (< 10.0 × 10–3) | 2.1 (1.3–3.6) | 0.003 | ||
| GLZLM_GLNU (> 15.3) | 3.2 (1.9–5.3) | < 0.001 | 2.1 (1.2–3.9) | 0.011 |
| GLZLM_LGZE (< 12.5 × 10–3) | 2.2 (1.2–3.8) | 0.008 | ||
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival of patients for gray-level zone length matrix (GLZLM) zone-length non-uniformity (GLNU) > 15.3 and GLZLM GLNU ≤ 15.3.
Multivariate Cox hazard ratio regression analysis of gray-level zone length matrix (GLZLM) gray-level non-uniformity (GLNU), surgical treatment, and clinical stage.
| Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
| GLZLM_GLNU (> 15.3) | 2.0 (1.2–3.4) | 0.0094 |
| Treatment (surgical treatment) | 0.29 (0.18–0.48) | < 0.001 |
| Clinical stage (III, IV) | 1.3 (0.8–2.0) | 0.23 |
Figure 2The top 10 PET parameters for predicting survival according to mean decrease in Gini index evaluated by random forest classifier. GLZLM gray-level zone length matrix, GLNU zone-length non-uniformity, TLG total lesion glycolysis, GLRLM gray-level run length matrix, NGLDM neighborhood gray-level different matrix, RLNU run length non-uniformity, LRHGE long-run high gray-level emphasis, LZHGE large-zone high gray-level emphasis.
Figure 3Decision-tree-based classification of patients for poor prognosis using gray-level zone length matrix (GLZLM) zone-length non-uniformity (GLNU) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG).
Figure 4Flowchart of patient selection.