| Literature DB >> 33842352 |
Haiyan Zhu1,2, Yao Ai3, Jindi Zhang2, Ji Zhang3, Juebin Jin4, Congying Xie5,6, Huafang Su5, Xiance Jin2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Non-invasive method to predict the histological subtypes preoperatively is essential for the overall management of ovarian cancer (OC). The feasibility of radiomics in the differentiating of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and non-epithelial ovarian cancer (NEOC) based on computed tomography (CT) images was investigated.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; epithelial ovarian cancer; nomogram; non-epithelial ovarian cancer; ovarian cancer; radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33842352 PMCID: PMC8027335 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.642892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1The flowchart of the case identification process.
Clinical characteristic of patients enrolled with ovarian cancer.
| Characteristics | Patients ( |
|---|---|
| Weight (kgs), mean (range) | 56 (42–81) |
| Age (years), mean (range) | 54.23 (15–79) |
| Patients with metastasis | 71 (70.3%) |
| FIGO stage | |
| I | 28 (27.7%) |
| II | 14 (13.9%) |
| III | 57 (56.4%) |
| IV | 2 (2.0%) |
| Histological type | |
| Epithelial | 86 (85.1%) |
| Non-epithelial | 15 (14.9%) |
| Vascular invasion | |
| Yes | 12 (11.9%) |
| No | 89 (88.1%) |
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 2Selection of histological subtypes-associated radiomics features using the elastic net method. (A) Tuning parameter (λ) in the elastic net used 10-fold cross validation via maximum area under curve and criterion of minimum standard deviation were followed. (B) The coefficient profiles of 39 radiomics features. A coefficient profile plot was generated by violating the log (λ) sequence.
Univariate analysis of preoperative clinical factors associated with histological subtypes.
| Characteristics | Non-epithelial ( | Epithelial ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), Mean (range) | 48 (15–74) | 58.5 (23–79) | 0.008* |
| Weight (kg) | 56 (47–75) | 56 (42–81) | 0.353 |
| TCHO (mmol/L) | 0.569 | ||
| ≤5.2 | 8 | 54 | |
| >5.2 | 7 | 32 | |
| TG (mmol/L) | 0.204 | ||
| ≤1.7 | 9 | 66 | |
| >1.7 | 6 | 20 | |
| HDLC (mmol/L) | 0.386 | ||
| ≤2 | 14 | 84 | |
| >2 | 1 | 2 | |
| LDLC (mmol/L) | 0.254 | ||
| ≤3.12 | 7 | 55 | |
| >3.12 | 8 | 31 | |
| Blood sugar (mmol/L) | 0.594 | ||
| ≤6.1 | 9 | 52 | |
| >6.1 | 6 | 34 | |
| CA125 (U/ml) | 0.002* | ||
| ≤35 | 7 | 9 | |
| >35 | 8 | 77 | |
| CEA (ng/ml) | 0.219 | ||
| ≤5 | 9 | 65 | |
| >5 | 6 | 21 |
*p value < 0.05; Categorical variables were compared by using the chi-square test. Continues variables were compared by using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test;
TCHO, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDLC, high density lipoprotein; LDLC, low density lipoprotein; CA125, carcinoma antigen 125; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 3(A–C) The performance of the radiomics signature, clinical model, and combined model for the discrimination of histological subtypes in each patient. The blue solid line indicates the best cutoff of the radiomics score or the predicted value of two models for the discrimination of histological subtypes; patients above the cutoff were classified as epithelial group, while patients below the cutoff were classified as non-epithelial group. (D) The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves with area under curves (AUCs) for radiomics signature, clinical factor model, and combined model of 0.781 (95% CI, 0.666–0.897), 0.806 (95% CI, 0.686–0.926), and 0.869 (95% CI, 0.783–0.955), respectively.
Performance of combined model.
| Goodness of fit | Discrimination | Corrected performance | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Nagelkerke R2 | AIC | Brier Score | ACC | SPE | SEN | PPV | NPV | AUC | Internal Validated AUC | |
| Combined model | 0.45 | 63.12 | 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.84 | |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; ACC, accuracy; SPE, Specificity; SEN, sensitivity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under receiver operating characteristic curve.
Internal validation was performed with 1000 replicate bootstrapping on the primary cohort.
Results of the Multivariable Logistic Regression.
| Coefficient | Odds ratios (95%CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −6.008 | 0.003 | |
| Age | 0.065 | 1.068(1.058-1.827) | 0.011 |
| CA125 | 0.010 | 1.031(1.013-1.128) | 0.027 |
| Radiomics signature | 2.360 | 10.593(2.649-60.784) | 0.003 |
Figure 4(A) Nomogram for the prediction of histological types. The different values for each variable corresponds to a point at the top of the graph, while the sum of the points for all the variables corresponds to a total point, draw a line from the total points to the bottom line is the probability of epithelial. (B) the calibration curve of the combined model showing the difference between the predicted probability of histological type and the actual probability. The “Ideal” line represents the perfect prediction as the predicted probabilities equal to the observed probabilities. The “Apparent” curve is the calibration of the entire cohort. The “Bias-correct” curve was the calibration created by internal validation of 1000-replicate bootstrap on the entire cohort. (C) the decision curve analysis for the radiomics signature, clinical model, and combined model. On the horizontal axis is the net benefit. The threshold probability is on the vertical axis. The gray line represents the assumption that all patients with epithelial OC. The black line represents the assumption that all patients with non-epithelial OC. The red line represents the radiomics signature, blue line and green line represent the clinical model and combined model respectively.