| Literature DB >> 33975178 |
Yujia Liu1, Huijian Fan2, Di Dong3, Ping Liu4, Bingxi He5, Lingwei Meng6, Jiaming Chen7, Chunlin Chen8, Jinghe Lang9, Jie Tian10.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiomic models have been demonstrated to have acceptable discrimination capability for detecting lymph node metastasis (LNM). We aimed to develop a computed tomography-based radiomic model and validate its usefulness in the prediction of normal-sized LNM at node level in cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Classifiers; Lymph node metastasis; Preoperative prediction; Radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33975178 PMCID: PMC8131712 DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Oncol ISSN: 1936-5233 Impact factor: 4.243
Fig 1Workflow of the model construction. (a) CT images from arterial and venous phases. (b) Features including shape, intensity, and texture, extracted from the two phases. (c) Arterial and venous phase models and combined models were built. (d) We constructed the radiomic model by ANN with 5 fully connected layers. The feature selection method and different classifiers were used for modeling and comparison. mRMR, minimum redundancy maximum relevance; SVM, support vector machine; DT, decision tree; RF, random forest; ANN, artificial neural network.
The characteristics in the three cohorts.
| Index | Training cohort | Internal validation cohort | External validation cohort | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | |
| OLN | 20 | 60 | 14 | 33 | 0 | 30 |
| IILN | 5 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| PLN | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| CILN | 5 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| EILN | 12 | 22 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 9 |
| DILN | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 48 | 100 | 23 | 51 | 5 | 46 |
OLN, obturator LN; IILN, internal iliac LN; EILN, external iliac LN; CILN, common iliac LN; DILN, deep inguinal LN; PLN, parametrial LN.
Performance of the radiomic model.
| Index | Specificity | Sensitivity | Accuracy | AUC (95% CI) | TN | TP | FN | FP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Venous phase model | ||||||||
| Training | 0.900 | 0.812 | 0.872 | 0.894 (0.832-0.956) | 90 | 39 | 9 | 10 |
| Internal validation | 0.784 | 0.739 | 0.770 | 0.853 (0.768-0.939) | 40 | 17 | 6 | 11 |
| External validation | 0.652 | 1.000 | 0.686 | 0.835 (0.675-0.995) | 30 | 5 | 0 | 16 |
| Arterial phase model | ||||||||
| Training | 0.830 | 0.729 | 0.797 | 0.781 (0.692-0.870) | 83 | 35 | 13 | 17 |
| Internal validation | 0.784 | 0.696 | 0.757 | 0.734 (0.598-0.870) | 40 | 16 | 7 | 11 |
| External validation | 0.891 | 0.400 | 0.843 | 0.678 (0.466-0.934) | 41 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Radiomic model | ||||||||
| Training | 0.890 | 0.854 | 0.878 | 0.912 (0.862-0.963) | 89 | 41 | 7 | 11 |
| Internal validation | 0.765 | 0.870 | 0.797 | 0.859 (0.776-0.941) | 39 | 20 | 3 | 12 |
| External validation | 0.739 | 0.8 | 0.745 | 0.800 (0.667-0.933) | 34 | 4 | 1 | 12 |
TN, true negative; TP, true positive; FN, false negative; FP, false positive.
Fig 2AUCs of all the models we constructed in the internal validation cohort.
Fig 3(a) Decision curve of the radiomic model. (b) The distribution of the predicted values of the radiomic model in three cohorts. (c) ROC curves of different anatomic regions of LNs in the radiomic model.
Fig 4Two examples of the combined model for predicting lymph node metastasis.