| Literature DB >> 34041307 |
Chohee Kim1, Hwan-Ho Cho2, Joon Young Choi3, Teri J Franks4, Joungho Han5, Yeonu Choi1, Se-Hoon Lee6, Hyunjin Park7,8, Kyung Soo Lee1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To demonstrate semantic, radiomics, and the combined risk models related to the prognoses of pulmonary pleomorphic carcinomas (PCs).Entities:
Keywords: C-index, Concordance index; CRS, Combined risk score; DL, Deep learning; GCLM, Gray-level co-occurrence matrix; HR, Hazard ration; ICC, Intra-class correlation; ISZM, Intensity size zone matrix; KRAS, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog; LASSO, Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; LDA, Low density area; Lung; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; MTV, Metabolic tumor volume; Non-small cell carcinoma; PC, Pleomorphic carcinoma; PET/CT, Positron emission tomography/Computed tomography; Pleomorphic carcinoma; Prognosis; ROI, Region of interest; RRS, Radiomics risk score; Radiomics; SRS, Semantic risk score; SUVavg, Average standardized uptake value; SUVmax, Maximum standardized uptake value; TLG, Total lesion glycolysis; VOI, Volume of interest
Year: 2021 PMID: 34041307 PMCID: PMC8141891 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2021.100351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Radiol Open ISSN: 2352-0477
Fig. 1Flow diagram of patient inclusion.
Demographic Information.
| Variables | Training set | Test set | Test Applied | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 25 | |||
| 63.4167 (10.4837) | 65.2000 (8.8882) | 0.458 | T-test | |
| 0.105 | Chi-squared test | |||
| Male | 53 | 18 | ||
| Female | 7 | 7 | ||
| 0.7686 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| NA | 1 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 25 | 13 | ||
| 2 | 15 | 6 | ||
| 3 | 16 | 4 | ||
| 4 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 0.532 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 12 | 3 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 44 | 19 | ||
| Large cell carcinoma | 2 | 1 | ||
| Adenosquamous carcinoma | 2 | 1 | ||
| Sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma | 0 | 1 | ||
| 41.3 (27.2) | 43.2 (28.2) | 0.767 | T-test | |
| Spindle/giant cell component (%), Mean (STD) | 36.1 (25.3) | 32.4 (23.5) | 0.535 | T-test |
| Necrosis component (%), Mean (STD) | 22.7 (26.0) | 24.4 (30.9) | 0.792 | T-test |
| 0.552 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| Central | 3 | 0 | ||
| Peripheral | 57 | 25 | ||
| 0.192 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| Round | 2 | 2 | ||
| Lobulated | 40 | 12 | ||
| Spiculated | 18 | 11 | ||
| 0.294 | ||||
| Ill-defined | 0 | 1 | ||
| Well-defined | 60 | 24 | ||
| 1.000 | Chi-squared test | |||
| No | 46 | 19 | ||
| Yes | 14 | 6 | ||
| 1.000 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| No | 57 | 24 | ||
| Yes | 3 | 1 | ||
| 0.790 | Chi-squared test | |||
| No | 39 | 17 | ||
| Yes | 21 | 8 | ||
| 0.328 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| No | 49 | 23 | ||
| Yes | 11 | 2 | ||
| 0.959 | Fisher's exact test | |||
| None | 30 | 14 | ||
| CCRT | 8 | 3 | ||
| CTx | 20 | 8 | ||
| RTx | 2 | 0 |
Note. __ STD = standard deviation, GGO = ground-glass opacity, CCRT = concurrent chemoradiation therapy, CTX = chemotherapy, RTx = radiation therapy.
Features Appeared to Be Significant in Various Risk Score Models.
| Models | Significant features | Cox-Lasso coefficients |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic risk score model | ||
| Location center | −0.334 | |
| Cavity | 0.140 | |
| Adjuvant Therapy | −0.492 | |
| SUVmax | 0.226 | |
| Radiomics risk score model | ||
| CT Firstorder Energy | 0.090 | |
| CT Firstorder RootMeanSqaured | 0.039 | |
| SUV Firstorder Total Energy | 0.014 | |
| SUV GLCM Cluster Shade | 0.046 | |
| SUV GLSZM Small Area Low Gray Level Emphasis | −0.002 | |
| Combined risk score model | ||
| CT Firstorder Energy | 0.033 | |
| Adjuvant Therapy | −0.084 | |
| SUVmax | 0.013 |
Note _ The name of the radiomics features follows the format of modality, category, and detailed name. For example, CT Firstorder Energy refers to the energy feature belonging to first-order histogram category computed from CT.
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier plots for (a) semantic risk score, (b) radiomics risk score, and (c) combined risk score. The left plots are the survival plots for the training set and the right plots are the survival for the test set.
Fig. 3An example of combined risk score features predicting good survival. (a) CT and (b) PET/CT fusion images show an approximately 30-mm-sized tumor in left upper lobe in a 69-year-old man. Patient's TNM stage was T1cN0M0 (stage IA). This tumor was pathologically confirmed as pleomorphic carcinoma composed of spindle (80 %) cells and adenocarcinoma (10 %) cells. Prognosis was expected to be good with low risk (CT energy; 61158963, SUVmax; 9.9). The patient remained alive five years after surgical management.
Fig. 4Example of combined risk score features predicting poor survival. (a) CT and (b) PET/CT fusion images demonstrate an approximately 50-mm-sized mass in left lower lobe in a 48-year-old man. Patient's TNM stage was T2bN0M0 (stage IIA). This mass was pathologically confirmed as pleomorphic carcinoma composed of spindle (10 %) cells and large cell carcinoma (10 %) cells. Prognosis was expected to be poor with high risk (CT energy; 976767333, SUVmax; 33.5). This patient died 101 days after surgery.
Performance Comparisons for Various Risk Score Models.
| Hazard ratio | 95 % confidence interval | Concordance index | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Semantic risk score | 2.651 | 1.238 – 5.678 | 0.709 | 0.021 |
| Radiomics risk score | 2.402 | 1.114 – 5.086 | 0.704 | 0.036 | |
| Combined risk score | 2.438 | 1.146 – 5.189 | 0.677 | 0.034 | |
| Test | Semantic risk score | 4.119 | 1.089 – 15.577 | 0.664 | 0.081 |
| Radiomics risk score | 3.716 | 0.851 – 16.222 | 0.591 | 0.171 | |
| Combined risk score | 4.795 | 1.282 – 17.937 | 0.617 | 0.046 |