| Literature DB >> 33912439 |
Lei-Lei Wu1, Jin-Long Wang2, Wei Huang1, Xuan Liu1, Yang-Yu Huang1, Jing Zeng1, Chun-Yan Cui1, Jia-Bin Lu1, Peng Lin1, Hao Long1, Lan-Jun Zhang1, Jun Wei3, Yao Lu2, Guo-Wei Ma1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel computerized quantitative analysis based on histopathological and computed tomography (CT) images for predicting the postoperative prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients.Entities:
Keywords: esophageal cancer; medical images; prognosis; quantitative analysis; survival model
Year: 2021 PMID: 33912439 PMCID: PMC8072145 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.565755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1(A) The schematic diagram showing the study design; (B) The processing of pathological images.
The characteristic of clinical information in patients with ESCC.
| Variable | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 123 | 80.4 |
| Female | 30 | 19.6 |
|
| ||
| ≤65 | 111 | 72.5 |
| >65 | 42 | 27.5 |
|
| ||
| No | 62 | 40.5 |
| Yes | 91 | 59.5 |
|
| ||
| No | 89 | 58.2 |
| Yes | 64 | 41.8 |
|
| ||
| Upper | 3 | 2.0 |
| Middle | 70 | 45.8 |
| Lower | 80 | 52.3 |
|
| ||
| ≤5 | 115 | 75.2 |
| >5 | 38 | 24.8 |
|
| ||
| Well–moderate | 130 | 85.0 |
| Poor | 23 | 15.0 |
|
| ||
| IB | 5 | 3.3 |
| IIA | 56 | 36.6 |
| IIB | 8 | 5.2 |
| IIIA | 8 | 5.2 |
| IIIB | 64 | 41.8 |
| IV | 12 | 7.8 |
|
| ||
| T1 | 10 | 6.5 |
| T2 | 32 | 21.0 |
| T3 | 107 | 69.9 |
| T4a | 4 | 2.6 |
|
| ||
| N0 | 69 | 45.1 |
| N1 | 45 | 29.4 |
| N2 | 28 | 18.3 |
| N3 | 11 | 7.2 |
|
| ||
| No | 81 | 52.9 |
| Yes | 72 | 47.1 |
|
| ||
| No | 147 | 96.1 |
| Yes | 6 | 3.9 |
|
| ||
| ≤ 400ml | 152 | 99.3 |
| > 400ml | 1 | 0.7 |
|
| ||
| ≤ 5mg/ml | 106 | 69.3 |
| > 5mg/ml | 47 | 30.7 |
|
| ||
| ≤ 1.5 | 96 | 62.7 |
| > 1.5 | 57 | 37.3 |
|
| ||
| No | 100 | 65.4 |
| Yes | 53 | 34.5 |
|
| ||
| No | 146 | 95.4 |
| Chemotherapy | 3 | 2.0 |
| Radiotherapy | 4 | 2.6 |
Six types of radiomics features and the number of them.
| Feature class | Count |
|---|---|
| Shape 3D | 16 |
| First Order Statistics | 19 |
| Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix | 24 |
| Gray Level Run Length Matrix | 16 |
| Gray Level Size Zone Matrix | 16 |
| Gray Level Dependence Matrix | 14 |
Figure 2(A) The distribution of 20 pathological patches cluster ratio (PPCR) features in alive patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC); (B) The distribution of 20 PPCR features in dead patients with ESCC.
Figure 3(A) The ratio of 20 PPCR features to all patches; (B) visualization of image patches influencing outcomes of patients.
Selected features from medical images and clinical information by RFE.
| Features | Statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HR | P value | 95% CI | |
|
| |||
| original_shape_LeastAxisLength | 0.41 | 0.04 | 0.02-0.81 |
| original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterColumn | 1.07 | <0.005 | 0.46-1.67 |
| original_shape_Maximum3DDiameter | 1.47 | <0.005 | 0.75-2.18 |
| original_shape_Sphericity | 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.09-0.53 |
| original_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.14-0.91 |
| original_glszm_LargeAreaEmphasis | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.08-0.6 |
| original_glszm_ZoneEntropy | 0.85 | <0.005 | 0.31-1.39 |
| original_ngtdm_Contrast | 0.3 | 0.03 | 0.03-0.57 |
|
| |||
| Cluster 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0-0.01 |
| Cluster 3 | 0 | 0.15 | 0-0.01 |
| Cluster 5 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01-0.08 |
| Cluster 10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0-0.01 |
| Cluster 16 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0-0.09 |
|
| |||
| Drinking History | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.15-0.79 |
| CRP | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0-0.02 |
| AGR | 1.07 | 0.05 | 0.01-2.13 |
| TNM stage | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.02-0.3 |
Figure 4Application of the four different prognostic models to refine the assessment of risk in ESCC. (A–D) Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for a group of patients with ESCC from the whole cohorts and the subgroups predicted to have either a high or a low probability of mortality.
Overall survival of patients with ESCC in every model.
| Model | Overall Survival (OS) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-year OS (%) | 3-year OS (%) | Median survival time (month) | P value | ||
| Clinical Model | Low risk | 74.0% | 58.0% | – | <0.001 |
| High risk | 46.0% | 33.0% | 22 | ||
| CT-clinical model | Low risk | 76.0% | 57.0% | – | <0.001 |
| High risk | 44.0% | 35.0% | 22 | ||
| Pathology-clinical model | Low risk | 73.0% | 61.0% | – | 0.001 |
| High risk | 47.0% | 30.0% | 22 | ||
| CT-pathology-clinical model | Low risk | 82.0% | 67.0% | – | <0.001 |
| High risk | 38.0% | 25.0% | 18 | ||