| Literature DB >> 33426314 |
Che-Yu Hsu1,2,3, Shih-Min Lin4, Ngan Ming Tsang4,5, Yu-Hsiang Juan6, Chun-Wei Wang1,2,3, Wei-Chung Wang7, Sung-Hsin Kuo1,2,3,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; Loco-regional failure; Organ preservation treatment; Radiomics; Survival
Year: 2020 PMID: 33426314 PMCID: PMC7780126 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.08.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2405-6308
Fig. 1(A) Scheme of the recruitment pathway of patients with HPSCC into the experimental cohort and validation cohort (B) Flowchart: radiomic signature development process including image pre-processing, image feature extraction, and selection of radiomic factors to generate the radiomic signature. HPSCC, hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; GLCM, gray-level co-occurrence matrix; GLRL, gray-level run-length; LASSO, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
Baseline patient characteristics in the experimental and validation cohorts.
| Experimental Cohort | Validation Cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, n (%) | |||
| >60 years | 15 (18.3) | 6 (17.6) | 0.934 |
| ≤60 years | 67 (81.7) | 28 (82.4) | |
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 78 (95.1) | 33 (97.1) | 0.640 |
| Female | 4 (4.9) | 1 (2.9) | |
| Clinical T stage, n (%) | |||
| T1-T3 | 30 (36.6) | 15 (44.1) | 0.449 |
| T4 | 52 (63.4) | 19 (55.9) | |
| Clinical N stage, n (%) | |||
| N0 | 13 (15.9) | 9 (26.5) | 0.184 |
| N1-N3 | 69 (84.1) | 25 (73.5) | |
| Clinical TNM stage, n (%) | |||
| Stage I-III | 13 (15.9) | 9 (26.5) | 0.184 |
| Stage IV | 69 (84.1) | 25 (73.5) | |
| Histologic grade, n (%) | |||
| Grade 1–2 | 77 (93.9) | 29 (85.3) | 0.133 |
| Grade 3 | 5 (6.1) | 5 (14.7) | |
| Tumor volume, mean ± SD, | 36.67 ± 30.66 | 34.7 ± 39.2 | 0.778 |
| Follow-up time, mean ± SD, | 39.34 ± 34.65 | 49.45 ± 36.84 | 0.163 |
| Institution, | |||
| Institution 1 | 65 (79.3) | 25 (73.5) | 0.500 |
| Institution 2 | 17 (20.7) | 9 (26.5) | |
Abbreviations: n, number; T, tumor; N, lymph node, SD, standard deviation.
The distribution of prognostic factors in 1-year LR control and LR failure subgroups in experimental and validation cohorts.
| Experimental cohort | Validation cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-year LR control | 1-year LR failure | 1-year LR control | 1-year LR failure | |||
| Age, year | ||||||
| Mean ± SD | 55.04 ± 9.15 | 51.00 ± 9.56 | 0.054 | 51.77 ± 8.62 | 51.58 ± 9.25 | 0.953 |
| Smoking, n (%) | ||||||
| No | 13 (31.7) | 11 (26.8) | 0.809 | 8 (50) | 5 (50) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 28 (68.3) | 30 (73.2) | 8 (50) | 5 (50) | ||
| cT, n (%) | ||||||
| T1-T3 | 21 (51.2) | 9 (22.0) | 0.011 | 11 (68.8) | 4 (40) | 0.228 |
| T4 | 20 (48.8) | 32 (78.0) | 5 (31.2) | 6 (60) | ||
| cN, n (%) | ||||||
| N0-N1 | 9 (22.0) | 4 (9.8) | 0.226 | 13 (81.2) | 3 (30) | 0.015 |
| N2-N3 | 32 (78.0) | 37 (90.2) | 3 (18.8) | 7 (70) | ||
| TNM, n (%) | ||||||
| Stage I-III | 9 (22.0) | 4 (9.8) | 0.226 | 9 (56.3) | 3 (30) | 0.226 |
| Stage IV | 32 (78.0) | 37 (90.2) | 7 (43.8) | 7 (70) | ||
| HG, n (%) | ||||||
| Grade 1–2 | 38 (92.7) | 39 (95.1) | 1.000 | 15 (93.8) | 10 (100) | 1.00 |
| Grade 3 | 3 (7.3) | 2 (4.9) | 1 (6.2) | 0 (0) | ||
| TV, | 25.59 ± 24.68 | 47.73 ± 32.30 | 0.001 | 22.93 ± 29.47 | 56.40 ± 46.56 | 0.015 |
| mean ± SD | −0.36 ± 0.66 | 0.34 ± 0.54 | <0.001 | −0.46 ± 0.69 | 0.36 ± 0.94 | 0.006 |
Abbreviations: LR, loco-regional; n, number; cT, clinical T stage; cN, clinical N stage; TNM, clinical TNM stage; HG, histologic grade; IC, induction chemotherapy; TV, Tumor volume; SD, standard deviation; Q1, first quartile; Q3, third quartile.
Fig. 2Distribution of the individual RS for the 1-year loco-regional failure in two cohorts. (A) A waterfall plot illustration for the distribution of the individual RS_score for the 1-year loco-regional recurrence subgroup and 1-year locoregional disease-free subgroup; upper panel, experimental cohort; lower panel, validation cohort (B) Receiver operating characteristic curve used to evaluate the prediction performance of RS in the experimental cohort (upper panel) and in the validation cohort (lower panel). RS, radiomic signature.
1-year Loco-regional failure prediction performance of radiomic signature and volumetric predictors.
| Experimental cohort | Validation cohort | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPR | NPR | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPR | NPR | Accuracy | |
| RS_cutoff | 75.60% | 82.90% | 81.60% | 77.30% | 79.27% | 83.33% | 77.30% | 66.70% | 89.50% | 79.41% |
| V35 | 53.70% | 80.50% | 73.33% | 63.50% | 67.07% | 58.30% | 81.80% | 63.60% | 78.30% | 73.53% |
| V30 | 58.50% | 70.70% | 66.70% | 63.00% | 64.63% | 66.70% | 81.80% | 66.70% | 81.80% | 76.47% |
| V25 | 73.20% | 56.10% | 62.50% | 67.60% | 64.63% | 75.00% | 77.30% | 64.30% | 85.00% | 76.47% |
| Stage III/IVA | cT4a | |||||||||
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPR | NPR | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPR | NPR | Accuracy | |
| RS_cutoff | 70.00% | 82.60% | 77.80% | 76.00% | 76.74% | 75.90% | 65.20% | 73.30% | 68.20% | 71.15% |
| V35 | 45.00% | 82.60% | 69.20% | 63.30% | 65.12% | 58.60% | 65.00% | 68.00% | 55.60% | 61.54% |
| V30 | 50.00% | 73.90% | 63.00% | 62.50% | 62.79% | 62.10% | 47.80% | 60.00% | 50.00% | 55.77% |
| V25 | 65.00% | 60.00% | 59.10% | 66.70% | 62.79% | 75.90% | 26.10% | 56.40% | 46.20% | 51.92% |
Abbreviations: RS, radiomic signature; RS_cutoff, RS of 0.0326 cutoff point; V35/V30/25, tumor volume of 35/30/25 cm3 cutoff point; PPR, positive predictive ratio; NPR, negative predictive ratio.
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier survival curve for patients in the Institution 1 cohort (A) Progression-free survival (B) Laryngectomy-free survival (C) Overall survival; and the Kaplan–Meier survival curve for patients in the Institution 2 cohort (D) Progression-free survival (E) Laryngectomy-free survival (F) Overall survival.