| Literature DB >> 33967603 |
Lingli Li1,2, Xuefeng Kan1,2, Yongjun Zhao3, Bo Liang1,2, Tianhe Ye1,2, Lian Yang1,2, Chuansheng Zheng1,2.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and validate radiomics nomograms for the pretreatment predictions of overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) in the patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with apatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and to assess the incremental value of the clinical-radiomics nomograms for estimating individual OS and TTP.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; nomogram; radiomics; survival
Year: 2021 PMID: 33967603 PMCID: PMC8100633 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.55510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Figure 1Radiomics workflow and study flowchart.
Main baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients in the training set and validation set
| Characteristic | Training set (n = 48) | Validation set (n = 12) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.998 | |||
| Male | 41 (85) | 10 (83) | |
| Female | 7 (15) | 2 (17) | |
| Median age (y)* | 49 (31-66) | 49 (36-59) | 0.318 |
| Median BMI (kg/m2)* | 21.9 (18.3-28.7) | 23.5 (18.4-27.9) | 0.134 |
| 0.997 | |||
| Chronic hepatitis B only | 43 (90) | 11 (92) | |
| Unknown | 5 (10) | 1 (8) | |
| A | 41 (85) | 9 (75) | 0.861 |
| B | 7 (15) | 3 (25) | |
| 0.862 | |||
| 0 | 7 (15) | 1 (8) | |
| 1 | 36 (75) | 8 (67) | |
| 2 | 5 (10) | 3 (25) | |
| 0.717 | |||
| Nodular | 23 (48) | 8 (67) | |
| massive | 25 (52) | 4 (33) | |
| Median tumor size (mm) | 79 (32-160) | 60 (35-121) | 0.018# |
| Macroscopic vascular invasion | 28 (58) | 6 (50) | 0.965 |
| Extrahepatic spread | 30 (63) | 7 (58) | 0.995 |
| Median albumin level (g/dL) | 37 (25-45) | 34 (31-39) | 0.017# |
| Median total bilirubin level (mg/dL) | 16 (6-41) | 19 (10-101) | 0.216 |
| Median ɑ-fetoprotein level (ng/mL) | 760 (1-84500) | 336 (3-72814) | 0.419 |
| Median survival end points (d)* | |||
| Overall survival | 480 (90-1975) | 570 (180-1468) | 0.496 |
| Time to progression | 240 (30-1006) | 275 (60-458) | 0.280 |
Note: Except where indicated, data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses. BMI: body mass index, ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma;
*Numbers in parentheses are ranges;
#Statistically significant.
Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses of the advanced HCC radiomics signature and clinical features for predicting overall survival in the training set
| Radiomics signature and clinical feature | Hazard Ratio* | |
|---|---|---|
| ɑ-fetoprotein level | 1.67 (1.11-2.53) | 0.01# |
| InverseDifferenceMoment_AllDirection_offset4_SD (art) | 0.72 (0.47-1.09) | 0.12 |
| Compactness1 (art) | 0.65 (0.43-0.97) | 0.04# |
| ClusterShade_AllDirection_offset1 (por) | 2.53 (1.58-4.48) | <0.005# |
| ZonePercentage (por) | 1.73 (1.20-2.48) | <0.005# |
Note.-HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma, art: late arterial phase, por: portal venous phase;
*Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals;
#Statistically significant.
Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses of the advanced HCC radiomics signature and clinical features for predicting time to progression in the training set
| Radiomics signature and clinical feature | Hazard Ratio* | |
|---|---|---|
| ɑ-fetoprotein level | 1.54 (1.05-2.27) | 0.03# |
| ShortRunEmphasis_AllDirection_offset1_SD (art) | 2.33 (1.20-4.53) | 0.01# |
| Compactness1 (art) | 0.66 (0.46-0.93) | 0.02# |
| ShortRunHighGreyLevelEmphasis_AllDirection_offset1_SD (art) | 0.53 (0.30-0.92) | 0.03# |
| LargeAreaEmphasis (art) | 1.60 (1.13-2.27) | 0.01# |
| LowGreyLevelRunEmphasis_AllDirection_offset4_SD (art) | 0.73 (0.48-1.11) | 0.13 |
Note.-HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma, art: late arterial phase, por: portal venous phase;
*Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals;
#Statistically significant.
Figure 2Use of the constructed clinical-radiomics nomogram and radiomics nomogram to predict overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC, along with the assessment of the model calibration. Clinical-radiomics nomogram (A) and radiomics nomogram (B). Locate the patient's Rad-score on the Rad-score axis. Draw a line straight upward to the points' axis to determine how many points toward the probability of OS the patient receives for his or her Rad-score. Repeat the process for each variable. Sum the points achieved for each of the risk factors. Locate the final sum on the Total Point axis. Draw a line straight down to find the patient's probability of OS. Calibration curves for the clinical-radiomics nomogram (C) and radiomics nomogram (D) show the calibration of each model in terms of the agreement between the predicted and the observed 1-and 2-year outcomes. Nomogram predicted OS is plotted on the x-axis; the observed fraction OS is plotted on the y-axis. Diagonal dotted line = a perfect prediction by an ideal model, in which the predicted outcome perfectly corresponds to the actual outcome. Solid line = performance of the nomogram, a closer lining of which with the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction.
Figure 3Use of the constructed clinical-radiomics nomogram and radiomics nomogram to predict time to progression (TTP) in patients with advanced HCC, along with the assessment of the model calibration. Clinical-radiomics nomogram (A) and radiomics nomogram (B). Locate the patient's Rad-score on the Rad-score axis. Draw a line straight upward to the points' axis to determine how many points toward the probability of TTP the patient receives for his or her Rad-score. Repeat the process for each variable. Sum the points achieved for each of the risk factors. Locate the final sum on the Total Point axis. Draw a line straight down to find the patient's probability of TTP. Calibration curves for the clinical-radiomics nomogram (C) and radiomics nomogram (D) show the calibration of each model in terms of the agreement between the predicted and the observed 3-month outcomes. Nomogram predicted TTP is plotted on the x-axis; the observed fraction TTP is plotted on the y-axis. Diagonal dotted line = a perfect prediction by an ideal model, in which the predicted outcome perfectly corresponds to the actual outcome. Solid line = performance of the nomogram, a closer lining of which with the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction.
Figure 4Decision curve analysis for each model. Decision curve for the models of prediction overall survival (OS) with 1-year survival probability. (B) Decision curve for the models of prediction time to progression (TTP) with 3-month survival probability. The y-axis measures the net benefit. The net benefit was calculated by summing the benefits (true-positive results) and subtracting the harms (false-positive results), weighting the latter by a factor related to the relative harm of an undetected cancer compared with the harm of unnecessary treatment. The clinical-radiomics model had the highest net benefit compared with radiomics model and simple strategies such as follow-up of all patients (blue line) or no patients (red line) across the full range of threshold probabilities at which a patient would choose to undergo imaging follow-up.