| Literature DB >> 33868988 |
Ying Zhao1, Nan Wang1, Jingjun Wu1, Qinhe Zhang1, Tao Lin1, Yu Yao2,3, Zhebin Chen2,3, Man Wang1, Liuji Sheng1, Jinghong Liu1, Qingwei Song1, Feng Wang4, Xiangbo An4, Yan Guo5, Xin Li6, Tingfan Wu7, Ai Lian Liu1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) radiomics for pretherapeutic prediction of the response to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; magnetic resonance imaging; radiomics; therapeutic response; transarterial chemoembolization
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868988 PMCID: PMC8045706 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.582788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Flowchart of the recruitment pathway for patients.
Figure 2The workflow of radiomics analysis in our study. (A) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging was acquired. (B) Tumors were manually delineated around the entire tumor outline on all axial slices of arterial phase (AP), portal venous phase (PVP), and delayed phase (DP) images, and three-dimensional segmentations were formed. (C) Total 2367 radiomics features were extracted. (D) Four steps of feature dimensionality reduction were applied to all extracted features. (E) The radiomics model was constructed using logistic regression algorithm, and a nomogram that incorporates the radiomics score and clinical-radiological risk factors was established to provide a more understandable treatment response measurement for individualized evaluation, followed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis.
Patient baseline characteristics.
| Variables | Training cohort ( | Validation cohort ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient demographics | ||||
| Age (years), median (interquartile range) | 59 (56, 65) | 60 (54, 65) | -0.136 | 0.891 |
| Gender, No. (%) | 0.127 | 0.722 | ||
| Male | 77 (90.6) | 32 (86.5) | ||
| Female | 8 (9.4) | 5 (13.5) | ||
| Clinical characteristics | ||||
| History of hepatitis B or C, No. (%) | 0.012 | 0.913 | ||
| Positive | 56 (65.9) | 24 (64.9) | ||
| Negative | 29 (34.1) | 13 (35.1) | ||
| AFP (IU/ml), No. (%) | 0.072 | 0.788 | ||
| ≤ 400 | 55 (64.7) | 23 (62.2) | ||
| > 400 | 30 (35.3) | 14 (37.8) | ||
| ALT (U/L), No. (%) | 3.376 | 0.066 | ||
| ≤ 50 | 47 (55.3) | 27 (73.0) | ||
| > 50 | 38 (44.7) | 10 (27.0) | ||
| AST (U/L), No. (%) | 3.751 | 0.053 | ||
| ≤ 40 | 30 (35.3) | 20 (54.1) | ||
| > 40 | 55 (64.7) | 17 (45.9) | ||
| GGT (U/L), No. (%) | 3.107 | 0.078 | ||
| ≤ 60 | 21 (24.7) | 15 (40.5) | ||
| > 60 | 64 (75.3) | 22 (59.5) | ||
| ALP (U/L), No. (%) | 0.004 | 0.948 | ||
| ≤ 125 | 50 (58.8) | 22 (59.5) | ||
| > 125 | 35 (41.2) | 15 (40.5) | ||
| TBIL (umol/L), No. (%) | 0.001 | 0.977 | ||
| ≤ 19 | 48 (56.5) | 21 (56.8) | ||
| > 19 | 37 (43.5) | 16 (43.2) | ||
| ALB (g/L), No. (%) | 0.072 | 0.788 | ||
| < 40 | 55 (64.7) | 23 (62.2) | ||
| ≥ 40 | 30 (35.3) | 14 (37.8) | ||
| PLT (×109/L), No. (%) | 2.864 | 0.091 | ||
| < 125 | 44 (51.8) | 13 (35.1) | ||
| ≥ 125 | 41 (48.2) | 24 (64.9) | ||
| PT (s), No. (%) | 0.050 | 0.822 | ||
| ≤ 13 | 51 (60.0) | 23 (62.2) | ||
| > 13 | 34 (40.0) | 14 (37.8) | ||
| Child-Pugh class, No. (%) | 0.009 | 0.924 | ||
| A | 65 (76.5) | 28 (75.7) | ||
| B | 20 (23.5) | 9 (24.3) | ||
| ECOG performance status, No. (%) | 4.500 | 0.034 | ||
| 0 | 77 (90.6) | 28 (75.7) | ||
| 1 | 5 (5.9) | 7 (18.9) | ||
| 2 | 3 (3.5) | 2 (5.4) | ||
| BCLC stage, No. (%) | 2.120 | 0.145 | ||
| A | 41 (48.2) | 15 (40.6) | ||
| B | 31 (36.5) | 10 (27.0) | ||
| C | 13 (15.3) | 12 (32.4) | ||
| Radiological features | ||||
| Tumor size, No. (%) | 2.064 | 0.151 | ||
| ≤ 5 cm | 51 (60.0) | 17 (45.9) | ||
| > 5 cm | 34 (40.0) | 20 (54.1) | ||
| Tumor location, No. (%) | 1.766 | 0.184 | ||
| Left lobe | 20 (23.5) | 6 (16.2) | ||
| Junction lobe | 1 (1.2) | 2 (5.4) | ||
| Right lobe | 63 (74.1) | 28 (75.7) | ||
| Caudate lobe | 1 (1.2) | 1 (2.7) | ||
| Tumor number, No. (%) | 2.349 | 0.125 | ||
| ≤ 3 | 77 (90.6) | 37 (100.0) | ||
| > 3 | 8 (9.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Tumor shape, No. (%) | 1.761 | 0.184 | ||
| Circular | 67 (78.8) | 25 (67.6) | ||
| Irregular | 18 (21.2) | 12 (32.4) | ||
| Tumor margin, No. (%) | 0.780 | 0.377 | ||
| Smooth | 64 (75.3) | 25 (67.6) | ||
| Non-smooth | 21 (24.7) | 12 (32.4) | ||
| Intratumor necrosis, No. (%) | 0.364 | 0.546 | ||
| Present | 23 (27.1) | 12 (32.4) | ||
| Absent | 62 (72.9) | 25 (67.6) | ||
| Intratumor hemorrhage, No. (%) | 0.009 | 0.924 | ||
| Present | 20 (23.5) | 9 (24.3) | ||
| Absent | 65 (76.5) | 28 (75.7) | ||
| Intratumor fat, No. (%) | 1.059 | 0.303 | ||
| Present | 12 (14.1) | 8 (21.6) | ||
| Absent | 73 (85.9) | 29 (78.4) | ||
| Tumor encapsulation, No. (%) | 1.290 | 0.256 | ||
| Present | 53 (62.4) | 19 (51.4) | ||
| Absent | 32 (37.6) | 18 (48.6) | ||
| Arterial peritumoral enhancement, No. (%) | 1.395 | 0.238 | ||
| Present | 21 (24.7) | 13 (35.1) | ||
| Absent | 64 (75.3) | 24 (64.9) | ||
| Satellite nodule, No. (%) | 0.013 | 0.910 | ||
| Present | 8 (9.4) | 3 (8.1) | ||
| Absent | 77 (90.6) | 34 (91.9) | ||
| Arterial phase hyperenhancement, No. (%) | 1.445 | 0.229 | ||
| Present | 79 (92.9) | 37 (100.0) | ||
| Absent | 6 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Washout appearance, No. (%) | 0.133 | 0.715 | ||
| Present | 58 (68.2) | 24 (64.9) | ||
| Absent | 27 (31.8) | 13 (35.1) | ||
| Liver cirrhosis, No. (%) | 1.536 | 0.215 | ||
| Present | 56 (65.9) | 20 (54.1) | ||
| Absent | 29 (34.1) | 17 (45.9) |
Except where indicated, data are shown as numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses. No significant difference was found between the training and validation cohorts, except for ECOG performance status. AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; GGT, γ-glutamyltranspeptadase; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; TBIL, total bilirubin; ALB, albumin; PLT, platelet count; PT, prothrombin time; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.
Figure 3The histogram exhibits radiomics features contributed to the constructed radiomics model based on three-phase images. The y-axis represents radiomics features, with their coefficients in the multivariate logistic regression analysis plotted on the x-axis.
Discriminative performance of different predictive models in the training and validation cohorts.
| Predictive models | Training cohort | Validation cohort | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
| Clinical-radiological model | 0.744 (0.642 - 0.846) | 0.682 | 0.512 | 0.841 | 0.757 (0.595 - 0.920) | 0.757 | 0.667 | 0.842 |
| Radiomics model | ||||||||
| AP | 0.774 (0.675 - 0.873) | 0.682 | 0.659 | 0.705 | 0.752 (0.592 - 0.911) | 0.649 | 0.667 | 0.632 |
| PVP | 0.797 (0.705 - 0.890) | 0.682 | 0.610 | 0.750 | 0.830 (0.684 - 0.977) | 0.784 | 0.833 | 0.737 |
| DP | 0.736 (0.629 - 0.843) | 0.682 | 0.561 | 0.795 | 0.757 (0.592 - 0.923) | 0.730 | 0.667 | 0.789 |
| AP-PVP | 0.818 (0.729 - 0.907) | 0.718 | 0.683 | 0.750 | 0.810 (0.671 - 0.949) | 0.757 | 0.667 | 0.842 |
| AP-DP | 0.780 (0.681 - 0.879) | 0.718 | 0.732 | 0.705 | 0.804 (0.652 - 0.956) | 0.703 | 0.833 | 0.579 |
| PVP-DP | 0.800 (0.707 - 0.893) | 0.706 | 0.683 | 0.727 | 0.830 (0.690 - 0.971) | 0.757 | 0.889 | 0.632 |
| AP-PVP-DP | 0.838 (0.753 - 0.922) | 0.753 | 0.732 | 0.773 | 0.833 (0.691 - 0.975) | 0.703 | 0.889 | 0.526 |
| Combined model | 0.878 (0.806 - 0.950) | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.818 | 0.833 (0.687 - 0.979) | 0.730 | 0.833 | 0.632 |
AP, arterial phase; PVP, portal venous phase; DP, delayed phase; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 4ROC curves for the radiomics model, clinical-radiological model, and combined model in the training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B).
Figure 5Combined nomogram (A). The combined nomogram incorporated total bilirubin (TBIL), tumor shape, tumor encapsulation, and the radiomics score (rad-score). Calibration curves of the combined nomogram in the training cohort (B) and the validation cohort (C). The y-axis represents the actual result, and the x-axis represents the predicted probability. The diagonal dashed line indicates the ideal prediction by a perfect model. The solid line indicates the predictive performance of the model. If the solid line is closer to the diagonal dashed line, it means a better prediction.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis for the radiomics model, clinical-radiological model, and combined nomogram in the training cohort (A) and the validation cohort (B). The y-axis represents the net benefit, and the x-axis represents the threshold probability. The radiomics model, clinical-radiological model, and combined nomogram obtained more benefit than either the treat-all-patients scheme (gray line) or the treat-none scheme (horizontal black line) within certain ranges of threshold probabilities for predicting therapeutic response to TACE in HCC.