| Literature DB >> 33987349 |
Meiting Fu1, Dexin Chen2, Fuzheng Luo1, Guangxing Wang3,4, Shuoyu Xu2, Yadong Wang1, Caihong Sun3,4, Xueqin Xu3,4, Aimin Li1, Shuangmu Zhuo3,4, Side Liu1, Jun Yan2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current preoperative evaluation approaches cannot provide adequate information for the prediction of lymph node (LN) metastasis in colorectal cancer (CRC). Collagen alterations in the tumor microenvironment affect the progression of tumor cells. To more accurately assess the LN status of CRC preoperatively, we developed and validated a collagen signature-based nomogram for predicting LN metastasis in CRC.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer (CRC); collagen signature; lymph node metastasis; nomogram; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33987349 PMCID: PMC8106085 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-7565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Characteristics of the participants in the training and validation cohorts
| Variable | Training cohort | Validation cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| With LN metastasis (n=113) | Without LN metastasis (n=125) | P | With LN metastasis (n=50) | Without LN metastasis (n=54) | P | ||
| Age, median (IQR) | 59 (51.5–66.5) | 58 (48–65) | 0.316 | 57.5 (45–64.25) | 57 (47.75–64.25) | 0.935 | |
| Sex, n (%) | |||||||
| Male | 56 (49.6) | 73 (58.4) | 0.172 | 33 (66.0) | 39 (72.2) | 0.492 | |
| Female | 57 (50.4) | 52 (41.6) | 17 (34.0) | 15 (27.8) | |||
| Tumor location, n (%) | |||||||
| Rectum | 41 (36.3) | 42 (33.6) | 0.664 | 25 (50.0) | 22 (40.7) | 0.343 | |
| Colon | 72 (63.7) | 83 (66.4) | 25 (50.0) | 32 (59.3) | |||
| Preoperative tumor differentiation, n (%) | |||||||
| Well | 69 (61.1) | 85 (68.0) | 0.083 | 24 (48.0) | 39 (72.2) | 0.030 | |
| Moderate | 34 (30.1) | 37 (29.6) | 22 (44.0) | 14 (25.9) | |||
| Poor and undifferentiated | 10 (8.8) | 3 (2.4) | 4 (8.0) | 1 (1.9) | |||
| Preoperative histological type, n (%) | |||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 109 (96.5) | 122 (97.6) | 0.711 | 50 (100.0) | 53 (98.1) | 0.334 | |
| Mucinous | 4 (3.5) | 3 (2.4) | 0 | 1 (1.9) | |||
| CT-reported tumor size, n (%) | |||||||
| ≤4 cm | 58 (51.3) | 61 (48.8) | 0.697 | 26 (52.0) | 24 (44.4) | 0.441 | |
| >4 cm | 55 (48.7) | 64 (51.2) | 24 (48.0) | 30 (55.6) | |||
| CT-reported T stage, n (%) | |||||||
| T1 and T2 | 7 (6.2) | 34 (27.2) | <0.001 | 3 (6.0) | 15 (27.8) | 0.003 | |
| T3 and T4 | 106 (93.8) | 91 (72.8) | 47 (94.0) | 39 (72.2) | |||
| CT-reported LN status, n (%) | |||||||
| Negative | 33 (29.2) | 63 (50.4) | 0.001 | 15 (30.0) | 24 (44.4) | 0.128 | |
| Positive | 80 (70.8) | 62 (49.6) | 35 (70.0) | 30 (55.6) | |||
| CEA level, n (%) | |||||||
| Normal | 65 (57.5) | 94 (75.2) | 0.004 | 32 (64.0) | 42 (77.8) | 0.121 | |
| Elevated | 48 (42.5) | 31 (24.8) | 18 (36.0) | 12 (22.2) | |||
| CA 19-9 level, n (%) | |||||||
| Normal | 84 (74.3) | 111 (88.8) | 0.004 | 38 (76.0) | 48 (88.9) | 0.083 | |
| Elevated | 29 (25.7) | 14 (11.2) | 12 (24.0) | 6 (11.1) | |||
| Pathological T stage, n (%) | |||||||
| T1 and T2 | 13 (11.5) | 29 (23.2) | 0.018 | 7 (14.0) | 15 (27.8) | 0.086 | |
| T3 and T4 | 100 (88.5) | 96 (76.8) | 43 (86.0) | 39 (72.2) | |||
| Postoperative tumor differentiation, n (%) | |||||||
| Well | 11 (9.7) | 16 (12.8) | 0.204 | 1 (2.0) | 8 (14.8) | 0.033 | |
| Moderate | 77 (68.1) | 92 (73.6) | 38 (76.0) | 40 (74.1) | |||
| Poor and undifferentiated | 25 (22.2) | 17 (13.6) | 11 (22.0) | 6 (11.1) | |||
| Postoperative histological type, n (%) | |||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 104 (92.0) | 115 (92.0) | 0.992 | 47 (94.0) | 49 (90.7) | 0.717 | |
| Mucinous | 9 (8.0) | 10 (8.0) | 3 (6.0) | 5 (9.3) | |||
| Collagen signature, median (IQR) | 0.144 (−0.208 to 0.503) | −0.417 (−0.781 to −0.003) | <0.001 | 0.273 (−0.064 to 0.994) | −0.415 (−0.761 to −0.019) | <0.001 | |
IQR, interquartile range; CT, computed tomography; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA, carbohydrate antigen; LN, lymph node.
Figure 1Schematic illustration of collagen signature construction. (A) A representative region of interest with an area of 500×500 µm was selected. The corresponding multiphoton image was obtained, and the SHG signal image was translated into a binary mask image for analysis. Scale bar: 50 µm. (B) A computational framework for collagen signature calculation. LASSO regression was used to select the predictive features in the training cohort, and then, a formula was built. The collagen signatures in both the training and validation cohorts were all calculated with the formula. H&E, hematoxylin and eosin; SHG, second harmonic generation; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
Figure 2Distribution of the collagen signature and its relationship with LN metastasis. (A) Distribution of the collagen signature in the training cohort. (B) Comparison of the collagen signature between patients with and without LN metastasis in the training cohort. (C) Distribution of the collagen signature in the validation cohort. (D) Comparison of the collagen signature between patients with and without LN metastasis in the validation cohort. LN, lymph node.
Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses in the training cohort
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P | OR (95% CI) | P | ||
| Age | 0.992 (0.972−1.013) | 0.458 | − | − | |
| Sex (female | 1.429 (0.856−2.385) | 0.172 | − | − | |
| Location (colon | 0.889 (0.521−1.515) | 0.665 | − | − | |
| Preoperative histological type (mucinous | 1.492 (0.327−6.817) | 0.605 | − | − | |
| Preoperative tumor differentiation | 0.046 | 0.091 | |||
| Well | Reference | >0.99 | Reference | >0.99 | |
| Moderate | 1.132 (0.644−1.989) | 0.666 | 1.025 (0.514−2.040) | 0.945 | |
| Poor and undifferentiated | 4.106 (1.087−15.506) | 0.037 | 5.338 (1.184−24.077) | 0.029 | |
| CT-reported tumor size (>4 | 0.904 (0.543−1.504) | 0.697 | − | − | |
| CT-reported T stage (T3 and T4 | 5.658 (2.393−13.375) | <0.001 | 3.818 (1.397−10.434) | 0.009 | |
| CT-reported LN status (positive | 2.463 (1.441−4.210) | 0.001 | 2.392 (1.233−4.641) | 0.010 | |
| CEA level (elevated | 2.239 (1.290−3.886) | 0.004 | 1.698 (0.838−3.439) | 0.141 | |
| CA 19-9 level (elevated | 2.737 (1.362−5.501) | 0.005 | 2.123 (0.873−5.160) | 0.097 | |
| Collagen signature | 5.426 (3.107−9.476) | <0.001 | 5.950 (3.175−11.152) | <0.001 | |
OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval; CT, computed tomography; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA, carbohydrate antigen; LN, lymph node.
Figure 3Nomogram and performance evaluation. (A) Newly developed collagen signature-based nomogram. (B) ROC curve of the nomogram in training cohort. (C) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the training cohort. (D) ROC curve of the nomogram in the validation cohort. (E) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the validation cohort. For clinical use, tumor differentiation is determined by drawing a line straight up to the point axis to establish the score associated with preoperative tumor differentiation. Then, this process is repeated for the other five covariates. The scores of each covariate are added, and the total score is located on the total score points axis. Finally, a line is drawn straight down to the risk of the LN metastasis axis to obtain the probability. In the calibration curve, the y-axis represents the actual LN metastasis rate, and the x-axis represents the nomogram-predicted LN metastasis probability. The diagonal gray line represents a perfect prediction using an ideal model. The blue line represents the performance of the nomogram. The orange line represents the bias-corrected performance of the nomogram. CT, computed tomography; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA, carbohydrate antigen; LN, lymph node; ROC, receiver operator characteristic; AUROC, area under the receiver operator characteristic curve.
Figure 4Decision curve analysis. (A) Decision curve analysis of the training cohort. (B) Decision curve analysis of the validation cohort. The red line and black line represent the assumption regarding all patients with LN metastasis and all patients without LN metastasis, respectively. The blue line represents the collagen signature-based nomogram, and the yellow line represents the clinicopathological model. LN, lymph node.
Diagnostic performance of the nomogram in estimating the risk of LN metastasis
| Variable | Value (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Training cohort | Validation cohort | Total cohort | |
| Cutoff value | 0.384 | 0.384 | 0.384 |
| Sensitivity, % | 87.6 (70.8−93.8) | 84.0 (74.0−94.0) | 86.5 (81.0−91.4) |
| Specificity, % | 68.0 (58.4−82.4) | 70.4 (57.4−81.5) | 68.2 (61.5−74.9) |
| Accuracy, % | 77.3 (72.3−82.4) | 76.9 (69.2−84.6) | 76.9 (72.5−81.3) |
| Negative predictive value, % | 86.2 (75.5−92.5) | 82.7 (73.2−92.3) | 84.9 (79.5−89.9) |
| Positive predictive value, % | 71.4 (65.8−79.1) | 72.7 (64.2−81.5) | 71.2 (66.7−75.9) |
CI, confidence interval; LN, lymph node.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival and overall survival according to the nomogram-predicted subgroups of all patients. (A) Disease-free survival of all patients in the high- and low-risk subgroups. (B) Recurrence-free survival of all patients in the high- and low-risk subgroups. (C) Overall survival of all patients in the high- and low-risk subgroups.