Literature DB >> 33807494

Pretreatment MRI Radiomics Based Response Prediction Model in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.

Benedetta Gui1, Rosa Autorino1, Maura Miccò1, Alessia Nardangeli1, Adele Pesce2, Jacopo Lenkowicz1, Davide Cusumano1, Luca Russo2, Salvatore Persiani2, Luca Boldrini1, Nicola Dinapoli1, Gabriella Macchia3, Giuseppina Sallustio3, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta1,2, Gabriella Ferrandina1,2, Riccardo Manfredi1,2, Vincenzo Valentini1,2, Giovanni Scambia1,2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to create a radiomics model for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC) patients to predict pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) analysing T2-weighted 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquired before treatment start. Patients with LACC and an International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage from IB2 to IVA at diagnosis were retrospectively enrolled for this study. All patients underwent NACRT, followed by radical surgery; pCR-assessed on surgical specimen-was defined as absence of any residual tumour. Finally, 1889 features were extracted from MR images; features showing statistical significance in predicting pCR at the univariate analysis were selected following an iterative method, which was ad-hoc developed for this study. Based on this method, 15 different classifiers were trained considering the most significant features selected. Model selection was carried out using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as target metrics. One hundred eighty-three patients from two institutions were analysed. The model, showing the highest performance with an AUC of 0.80, was the random forest method initialised with default parameters. Radiomics appeared to be a reliable tool in pCR prediction for LACC patients undergoing NACRT, supporting the identification of patient risk groups, which paves treatment pathways tailored according to the predicted outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; cervical cancer; pathological response; prediction model; radiomics

Year:  2021        PMID: 33807494      PMCID: PMC8066099          DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11040631

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)        ISSN: 2075-4418


1. Introduction

Cervical cancer (CC) represents the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women, with 311,000 deaths in 2018 worldwide [1]. Treatment depends mainly on the stage of the tumour at diagnosis, as assessed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 staging system [2]. Locally advanced stages are usually treated with external beam radiotherapy in association with platinum-based chemotherapy (CRT) followed by brachytherapy boost [3]. Although survival rates for women with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC) are improving, one in three women develop local and pelvic recurrences, which supports the hypothesis of residual disease presence after definitive chemoradiation therapy [4]. Data suggest a role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by radical hysterectomy to remove potential radio- and chemo-resistant neoplastic foci, which improves local control in nonresponding patients [5,6,7]. Furthermore, pathological complete response (pCR) was associated with higher disease-free and long-term survival [8,9,10]. Therefore, a pCR pretreatment prediction may have a significant impact on LACC patient management by identifying tailored approaches for patient subgroups to achieve better clinical results. In this context, the application of medical imaging technologies has significantly developed during the last decade from a primarily qualitative analysis to a quantitative approach disclosing an immense amount of information. The revised FIGO staging permits the use of imaging and pathological findings, where accessible, to determine the stage. Regarding imaging technique the revised FIGO staging allows any of the imaging modalities depending on the accessible sources, such as ultrasound, CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), to give information regarding tumour dimension, nodal status and local and systemic extension [11]. MRI is the best imaging technique for the assessment of cervical lesions greater than 1 cm and it is recommended for initial imaging evaluation when tumour dimension is greater than 2 cm, showing to be effective for LACC staging and prognosis evaluation [12]. Different MRI sequences (T2WI, DW-MRI, DCE-MRI) have been assessed as noninvasive biomarkers of treatment response with variable and promising results [13,14,15]. In particular, T2-sequences and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) have been studied in this setting. However, the role of DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), to monitor early treatment response in patients affected by LACC undergoing CRT, is still controversial in literature [14,16]. Moreover, the future direction in term of prognostic noninvasive biomarkers should include the combination of different imaging technique such us US, CT, MRI and PET integrated with clinical and histologic data. Radiomics is to date a rapidly expanding field of clinical research, which gives the possibility to quantify intratumoural heterogeneity in a high throughput and noninvasive way, and offers the chance to individuate risk groups for single patients to allow tailored treatment according to the predicted outcome [17,18,19]. Indeed, tumour heterogeneity showed significant correlations with radiomics in a variety of cancer patients, including cervical cancer [20,21,22]. Some preliminary studies reporting CC pretreatment experiences used MRI images to characterise cervical lesions [13,14], to predict local response and to assess biological tumour heterogeneity [23]. However, no studies have correlated pretreatment MRI radiomics and histopathology in LACC patients treated with NACRT followed by radical hysterectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of MRI radiomics, used for staging, to predict pCR following NACRT in LACC patients with different FIGO stages.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Enrolment and Image Acquisition Protocol

Patients affected by LACC, with FIGO stage from IB2 to IVA, treated in two different institutions, were considered for this retrospective analysis. The cohort of institution A consisted of patients treated between 2007 and 2014; the cohort of institution B included cases treated from 2005 to 2013. Inclusion criteria were histological confirmed invasive carcinoma of the cervix, FIGO stage from IB2 to IVA, and absence of distant metastasis (cM0). Patients younger than 18 years, without pretreatment MRI, treated with palliative intent or those who did not undergo surgery for histological confirmation of response, were excluded from the analysis. Table 1 summarises a complete description of the cohorts investigated in this study.
Table 1

Patient characteristics.

Institution A(156 pts)Institution B(27 pts)
Age (Mean)22–76 (50.2)28–79 (54.2)
Histology
Squamous cell carcinoma142 (91%)23 (85.2%)
Glassy cell squamous carcinoma01 (3.7%)
Clear cell adeno-squamous carcinoma1 (0.7%)0
Adenocarcinoma12 (7.6%)2 (7.4%)
Adeno-squamous1 (0.7%)1 (3.7%)
FIGO Stage
IB26 (3.8%)2 (7.4%)
IIA9 (5.8%)2 (7.4%)
IIB119 (76.3%)21 (77.8%)
IIIA6 (3.8%)2 (7.4%)
IIIB13 (8.4%)0
IVA3 (1.9%)0
Nodal status
N075 (48.1%)17 (63%)
N181 (51.9%)10 (37%)
Pathological Response
pR066 (42.4%)8 (29.7%)
pR145 (28.8%)9 (33.3%)
pR245 (28.8%)10 (37%)

pR0: absence of any residual tumour after treatment at any site; pR1: microscopic response as persistent tumour foci of maximum dimension inferior to 3 mm; pR2: macroscopic response as persistent tumour foci with maximum dimension exceeding 3 mm.

In both centres, a 1.5 T MR machine (GE Signa Exite, Little Chalfont, UK) was used for imaging.

2.2. Treatment Workflow and Response Assessment

All patients underwent NACRT. Radiotherapy volumes were delineated according to consensus guidelines [24]. Concurrent chemotherapy was administrated with cisplatin alone or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil [25,26]. Radiotherapy consisted of 50.6 Gy administration to the primary tumour (PTV1) and 45 Gy to nodal drainage (PTV2) or 45 Gy to PTV1 and PTV2, according to the clinical disease stage. Restaging was performed 4–6 weeks after NACRT completion with MRI and PET-CT. All patients underwent radical hysterectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy within 6–8 weeks from NACRT completion. Pathological response to treatment was evaluated on surgical specimens. Complete pathological response (pCR) was defined as absence of any residual tumour after treatment at any site; microscopic response (pR1) as persistent tumour foci of maximum dimension inferior to 3 mm; macroscopic response (pR2) as persistent tumour foci with maximum dimension exceeding 3 mm [27].

2.3. Image Analysis

MRI for staging was acquired according to local institutional diagnostic protocols without injecting contrast agents. Acquisition parameters adopted in the MR protocol are reported in Table 2.
Table 2

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition parameters used in the MR clinical protocol adopted for axial (AX), sagittal (SAG) and coronal (COR) acquisitions.

AX T1-WAX T2-WSAG T2-WAX OBLIQUE T2-W (Perpendicular to the Long Axis of the Cervix)COR OBLIQUE T2-W (Parallel to the Long Axis of the Cervix)AX ABDOMINAL T2-WAX OBLIQUE DWI (= Ax Oblique T2-w)
SequenceFSEFRFSEFRFSEFRFSEFRFSEFRFSE- XLEPI
Echo time (ms)168585858584Minimum
NEX2224416
Repetition time (ms), TR470450045004500450018505425
No. of sections30302616164830
Receiver bandwidth (kHz)31.2531.2541.6741.6741.6741.67
Echo train length32615262617
Field of view (mm), FOV24242422244628
Section thickness (mm)4443454
Section spacing (mm)0.50.50.40.50.510.5
Matrix size448 × 288384 × 256384 × 256384 × 256384 × 256256 × 256128 × 128
b Value (s/mm2)------------------800
Phase directionA/PA/PS/IUNSWAPUNSWAPR/LR/L
The gross tumour volume (GTV) was contoured on the axial T2-weighted MR images. GTV was manually contoured in consensus by two radiologists, experts in gynaecological imaging, using a radiotherapy treatment planning system (TPS) (Eclipse, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The segmented images were then processed using MODDICOM, an R library designed to perform radiomic analysis. Before starting the radiomic analysis, image resolution was homogenised and all MR images were resampled to a value of spatial planar resolution equal to 0.548 × 0.548 mm2 [28,29].

2.4. Feature Extraction

Once resampled, MR images were processed using the Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) or the intensity based (IB) image filter. The LOG filter was applied varying the σ parameter, which is a measure of filter width, in the range 0–4.2 mm with steps of 0.35 mm (13 steps in total). Regarding the IB filter, a preliminary normalisation of the pixel intensities inside the region of interest (ROI) was performed, using the first and 99th percentile of ROI histogram grey levels as extremes. Pixel clusters were then identified considering two threshold levels (lower and upper level), defined as percentages of the maximum intensity level [30]. The IB filter was applied considering all the possible combinations of thresholds for levels ranging from 0% to 100% by 10% steps (for 55 combinations). The feature extraction was then performed on the filtered images considering the GTV as ROI: in particular, first-order features were calculated on the images processed with the LOG filter, while fractal, textural and morphological features were calculated considering the MR images processed using the IB filter. Considering the application of all the filters used, a total of 1889 radiomic features were extracted. The computer code used for image analysis can be found at https://bitbucket.org/kboadmin/lacc_radiomics/src/master/ (accessed date: 24 February 2020), while the comprehensive list of the features calculated is reported in the IBSI initiative [31].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The two patient cohorts were merged in a unique training set: feature selection and model training were carried out following an iterative method, ad-hoc developed for this study. This process consisted in a first step of feature selection and in a following step of classifier selection. Concerning the feature selection step, an eight-fold cross validation was performed: the merged dataset was randomly divided in eight folders and eight different datasets were analysed, considering each time seven of the eight folders defined. For each combination of the seven folders selected, Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney (WMW) test (or Student’s t-test depending on normality of the data distribution) was computed to investigate the ability of each radiomic feature in predicting the defined outcome at the univariate analysis. Features, resulting at least five times on the eight folder combinations significant (p < 0.05), were selected for correlation analysis, which was computed calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). The final set of significant features was composed by features showing a correlation value inferior to 0.6, to remove features with moderate mutual correlation [32]. Regarding the model selection, 15 different classifiers were trained considering significant features selected by previous analysis. Table 3 reports the extended names and the caret method of each of the tested models.
Table 3

Models’ legend, extended name and method used to calculate the classifier using the caret package of the R statistical software.

ModelExtended NameCaret Method
C5TREEDecision treeC5.0Tree
DTDecision treeC5.0
HDDAHigh dimensional discriminant analysishda
KNNK-nearest neighbourskknn
LOGREGLogistic regressionglm
NBNaive Bayesnb
NNNeural networknn
PAMNearest shrunken centroidspam
PDAPenalised discriminant analysispda
PLSPartial least squarepls
RF_DEFRandom forestrf. Default parameters
RF_GRIDRandom forestrf. Grid search
RF_RANDRandom forestrf. Random search
SDAShrinkage discriminant analysissda
SVMSupport vector machinesvmPoly. Polynomial Kernel
Even in this case, the merged dataset was partitioned in eight folders and each classifier was trained on seven of the eight folders considered, using the remaining folder as validation set. For each classifier, eight receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated, one for each unique combination of folders. The area under these ROC curves (AUC) was considered as metric to identify the best model. The model selection process was repeated three times, modifying the random selection of the cases in the eight folders. At the end of the three iterations, 24 ROC curves were analysed for each classifier, and the mean AUC value with the corresponding standard deviation was calculated. The model showing the highest mean AUC value on the three iterations of the cross-validation analysis was considered as the best classifier [33]. The best classifier was then trained on the whole dataset to obtain the final predictive model. The scheme of the entire workflow adopted for the features and model selection is reported in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Scheme of the workflow used for features and model selection.

The performance of the final predictive model was quantified in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy at the optimal discriminative threshold, which was identified through the Youden Index calculation, as reported in similar experiences [34,35]. All analyses described were performed using the caret package of the R software (version 3.4.3, 2017; www.r-project.org (accessed on 25 February 2021)).

3. Results

In total, 183 patients were included in the analysis. Out of 156 patients of cohort A, 66 (42%) pCR, 45 (29%) pR1 and 45 (29%) pR2 were observed. In cohort B (n = 27), we observed 8 (30%) patients with pCR, 9 (33%) with pR1 and 10 (37%) with pR2. The feature selection process identified 19 radiomic features significant at the univariate analysis. Starting from the identified significant features, a total of 15 predictive models were calculated: Table 4 reports the mean AUC values obtained on the 24 iterations performed during model selection for 15 classifiers considered, together with the standard deviation (SD) value, which was considered as measurement of the variation in predictive performance of the elaborated models.
Table 4

Mean and standard deviation (SD) values obtained in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on the 24 iterations performed for model selection.

ModelMean AUCSD (AUC)
RF_DEF0.800.08
RF_GRID0.790.11
RF_RAND0.790.07
NN0.730.11
SVM0.690.11
PLS0.680.10
PDA0.680.11
DT0.670.13
NB0.670.09
SDA0670.10
KNN0.660.09
LOGREG0.660.12
PAM0.640.12
HDDA0.630.09
C5TREE0.630.11
The AUC of the ROC curves calculated on the 24 iterations performed for the 15 classifiers considered in the work are provided as Supplementary Materials. The model showing the highest performance was the random forest (RF_DEF), which was initialised with the following default parameters: number of trees (ntree) equal to 500, and number of variables randomly sampled as candidates for each split (mtry) set equal to 4, which corresponds to the square root of variable numbers for classification. The final ROC curve model trained on the whole dataset is reported in Figure 2.
Figure 2

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve obtained considering the random forest model initialised with default parameters.

The RF_DEF model showed a mean AUC of 0.80 ± 0.8. The best cut off threshold was equal to 0.69 which corresponds to a Youden Index of 0.486. At the best cut-off threshold, the present model reports a specificity of 98.4% and a sensitivity of 50.2%, with an overall accuracy of 74.5%. The importance of the single variables included in the random forest model is reported in Figure 3.
Figure 3

Importance of the parameters included in the model.

The most important feature of the model is the cluster shade calculated on the grey level co-occurrence matrix, after the application of the LOG filter on the raw images with a σ value of 0.7. The other two features showing an importance higher than 50% are the maximum fractal dimension calculated on the subpopulation from 20% to 60% of the maximum pixel value and the kurtosis calculated on the raw MR images.

4. Discussion

Although NACRT followed by surgery is not a care standard for LACC patients in many centres, this approach achieved encouraging results with high rates of pathologically assessed complete response and local control rates with acceptable toxicity [8,9]. In this context, a tool to identify specific subgroups of patients who can benefit from a given treatment is necessary to achieve a fully personalised clinical approach. Several studies aimed to predict and monitor treatment response and clinical outcome analysing functional imaging like MRI or 18-FDG PET-TC in CC patients [23,36,37,38]. Literature suggests that metabolic response in post-therapy PET-CT correlates with failure patterns [36] and can predict OS in patients treated with CRT [37]. Some studies focused on temporal changes in tumour heterogeneity patterns on functional imaging such as dynamic contrast enhanced MRI, DWI [23] and FDG PET-CT [38] performed before, during and after CRT course to correlate imaging with treatment response outcomes and to define prognostic factors. In particular, tumour volume and ADC value were the most important prognostic factors [12,13,14,22]. However, the role of functional imaging is still under investigation in literature. Promising evidence supports the use of delta radiomics assessment in predicting outcomes (e.g., response to therapies) for treatment personalisation [23,39]. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first radiomics based pCR prediction model on pretreatment staging MRI in patients affected by locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing NACRT. The choice of pCR as outcome parameter represents the strength of this study; in fact, surgery following CRT allows verifying the pathological response to the treatment. The majority of studies on response prediction in CC is focused on early treatment response assessment during or soon after NACRT. The proposed model allows to predict the probability of achieving pCR using pretreatment imaging to allow clinicians the possibility to better plan the entire treatment using routinely acquired imaging for disease staging. Clinicians can also consider new protocols of dose escalation or dose-de-intensification based on single patient’s predicted outcomes, in order to ensure a response to treatment. This approach could significantly save resources in the management of this patient population optimising treatment workflows based on outcome prediction. The technical robustness of the model selection procedures and the encouraging AUC values (0.80) of the random forest method proposed represent an innovative tool for clinical decision support and oncological treatment personalisation. However, one of the main weaknesses of this predictive model is the low degree of direct interpretability of the individual features extracted from the MR images; the proposed method acts as a black-box, limiting the clinical interpretability of the key parameters on which this model is based. The poor interpretability of the model elaborated represents one of the main limitations of the modern techniques of image analysis, such as machine learning and deep learning: several experiences have already highlighted these limitations and new research fields are currently aiming to explain the artificial cognitive processes of these techniques [40,41]. Another limitation is represented by the lack of an external validation dataset, which is partially overcome by means of cross-validation: further studies aiming to externally validate this model are recommended in the future. The present study was performed considering only T2-w MR images, as it was the only imaging modality available for all patients included in the study. Other MR imaging modalities, such as DWI or dynamic contrast enhanced sequences, were object of radiomic analysis in some experiences [20,23,42,43], and not considered in other studies based only on T2-w MR image analysis [42,43,44]. Future developments of this innovative approach can therefore take into account external validation cohorts with images acquired on scanners provided by different vendors, as already performed for other tumour sites like rectal cancer [45]. Moreover, the inclusion of DWI ADC-maps segmentation should be evaluated in future studies in order to find other radiomic features useful for pCR prediction [46,47]. These innovative imaging approaches could play a fundamental role in hybrid magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) treatments, optimising radiotherapy planning of radiomics’ analysis output through the quantification of feature changes throughout treatment. Taken this into consideration, new dose delivery and targeting paradigms could be proposed and better treatment outcomes may be achieved, as already demonstrated in rectal and cervical cancer [48,49]. In conclusion, this radiomics based prediction pCR model can be useful to guide clinicians in their decision-making process, tailoring treatment according to response prediction in the frame of fully personalised clinical management of cervical cancer care.
  43 in total

1.  Morphological effects of radiochemotherapy on cervical carcinoma: a morphological study of 50 cases of hysterectomy specimens after neoadjuvant treatment.

Authors:  Gian Franco Zannoni; Valerio Gaetano Vellone; Arnaldo Carbone
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.762

2.  Youden Index and optimal cut-point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection.

Authors:  Marcus D Ruopp; Neil J Perkins; Brian W Whitcomb; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.207

3.  Concomitant boost plus large-field preoperative chemoradiation in locally advanced uterine cervix carcinoma: Phase II clinical trial final results (LARA-CC-1).

Authors:  Gabriella Macchia; Alessio G Morganti; Francesco Deodato; Savino Cilla; Alessandro Lucidi; Mariangela Massaccesi; Giovanni Scambia; Vincenzo Valentini; Numa Cellini; Gabriella Ferrandina
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 4.  Machine Learning in Medical Imaging.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Tumor radiomic heterogeneity: Multiparametric functional imaging to characterize variability and predict response following cervical cancer radiation therapy.

Authors:  Stephen R Bowen; William T C Yuh; Daniel S Hippe; Wei Wu; Savannah C Partridge; Saba Elias; Guang Jia; Zhibin Huang; George A Sandison; Dennis Nelson; Michael V Knopp; Simon S Lo; Paul E Kinahan; Nina A Mayr
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Prospective multimodal imaging assessment of locally advanced cervical cancer patients administered by chemoradiation followed by radical surgery-the "PRICE" study 2: role of conventional and DW-MRI.

Authors:  B Gui; M Miccò; A L Valentini; F Cambi; T Pasciuto; A Testa; R Autorino; G F Zannoni; V Rufini; M A Gambacorta; A Giordano; G Scambia; R Manfredi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Preoperative concomitant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: safety, outcome, and prognostic measures.

Authors:  G Ferrandina; F Legge; A Fagotti; F Fanfani; M Distefano; A Morganti; N Cellini; G Scambia
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-08-28       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Evaluation of T2-W MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging for the early post-treatment local response assessment of patients treated conservatively for cervical cancer: a multicentre study.

Authors:  Maarten G Thomeer; Vincent Vandecaveye; Loes Braun; Frenchey Mayer; Martine Franckena-Schouten; Peter de Boer; Jaap Stoker; Erik Van Limbergen; Marrije Buist; Ignace Vergote; Myriam Hunink; Helena van Doorn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping.

Authors:  Alex Zwanenburg; Martin Vallières; Mahmoud A Abdalah; Hugo J W L Aerts; Vincent Andrearczyk; Aditya Apte; Saeed Ashrafinia; Spyridon Bakas; Roelof J Beukinga; Ronald Boellaard; Marta Bogowicz; Luca Boldrini; Irène Buvat; Gary J R Cook; Christos Davatzikos; Adrien Depeursinge; Marie-Charlotte Desseroit; Nicola Dinapoli; Cuong Viet Dinh; Sebastian Echegaray; Issam El Naqa; Andriy Y Fedorov; Roberto Gatta; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; Michael Götz; Matthias Guckenberger; Sung Min Ha; Mathieu Hatt; Fabian Isensee; Philippe Lambin; Stefan Leger; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Jacopo Lenkowicz; Fiona Lippert; Are Losnegård; Klaus H Maier-Hein; Olivier Morin; Henning Müller; Sandy Napel; Christophe Nioche; Fanny Orlhac; Sarthak Pati; Elisabeth A G Pfaehler; Arman Rahmim; Arvind U K Rao; Jonas Scherer; Muhammad Musib Siddique; Nanna M Sijtsema; Jairo Socarras Fernandez; Emiliano Spezi; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost; Taman Upadhaya; Vincenzo Valentini; Lisanne V van Dijk; Joost van Griethuysen; Floris H P van Velden; Philip Whybra; Christian Richter; Steffen Löck
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 29.146

10.  MR-Based Radiomics Nomogram of Cervical Cancer in Prediction of the Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion preoperatively.

Authors:  Zhicong Li; Hailin Li; Shiyu Wang; Di Dong; Fangfang Yin; An Chen; Siwen Wang; Guangming Zhao; Mengjie Fang; Jie Tian; Sufang Wu; Han Wang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 4.813

View more
  5 in total

1.  Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Long Term Results of a Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Alessia Nardangeli; Rosa Autorino; Luca Boldrini; Maura Campitelli; Sara Reina; Gabriella Ferrandina; Nicolò Bizzarri; Luca Tagliaferri; Gabriella Macchia; Vincenzo Valentini; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Radiomic Score as a Potential Imaging Biomarker for Predicting Survival in Patients With Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Handong Li; Miaochen Zhu; Lian Jian; Feng Bi; Xiaoye Zhang; Chao Fang; Ying Wang; Jing Wang; Nayiyuan Wu; Xiaoping Yu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-08-16       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  MRI-based radiomics analysis improves preoperative diagnostic performance for the depth of stromal invasion in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jing Ren; Yuan Li; Jun-Jun Yang; Jia Zhao; Yang Xiang; Chen Xia; Ying Cao; Bo Chen; Hui Guan; Ya-Fei Qi; Wen Tang; Kuan Chen; Yong-Lan He; Zheng-Yu Jin; Hua-Dan Xue
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-01-29

4.  Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Combined with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Cervical Cancer Patients Effectively Improves Immune Function.

Authors:  Mo Liu; Hongping Wang; Shengye Du; Wenying Li; Fei Xuan; Yinghui Zhao; Na Li
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 5.  Radiomics-based prediction of two-year clinical outcome in locally advanced cervical cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Rosa Autorino; Benedetta Gui; Giulia Panza; Luca Boldrini; Davide Cusumano; Luca Russo; Alessia Nardangeli; Salvatore Persiani; Maura Campitelli; Gabriella Ferrandina; Gabriella Macchia; Vincenzo Valentini; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Riccardo Manfredi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 6.313

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.