| Literature DB >> 34081158 |
Xue Lin1,2, Sheng Zhao1, Huijie Jiang3, Fucang Jia4, Guisheng Wang5, Baochun He2, Hao Jiang1, Xiao Ma2, Jinping Li1, Zhongxing Shi6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of a radiomics-based nomogram in predicting preoperative T staging of rectal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Nomogram; Rectal cancer; Staging
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34081158 PMCID: PMC8435521 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03137-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Fig. 1Patient selection process
Fig. 2Tumor segmentation on rectal MRI. a A 49-year-old man with early-stage rectal cancer. b A 73-year-old man with LARC
Characteristics of patients
| Clinical factors | Training dataset ( | Validation dataset ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 59.84 ± 10.77 | 60.20 ± 10.67 | 0.799 |
| Gender, no (%) | 0.958 | ||
| Male | 131(69.7) | 56(70.0) | |
| Female | 57(30.3) | 24(30.0) | |
| Tumor diameter, median (IQR), cm | 4.5(3.5–5.5) | 4.5(3.6–5.5) | 0.428 |
| Location | 0.339 | ||
| Lower | 65(34.6) | 21(26.3) | |
| Middle | 119(63.3) | 56(70.0) | |
| Upper | 4(2.1) | 3(3.7) | |
| Differentiation degree | 0.940 | ||
| Poorly | 21(11.2) | 10(12.5) | |
| Moderately | 132(70.2) | 56(70.0) | |
| Well | 35(18.6) | 14(17.5) | |
| CEA level, no (%) | 0.329 | ||
| Normal | 120(63.8) | 46(57.5) | |
| Abnormal | 68(36.2) | 34(42.5) | |
| CA199 level, no (%) | 0.080 | ||
| Normal | 162(86.2) | 62(77.5) | |
| Abnormal | 26(13.8) | 18(22.5) | |
| Stage, no (%) | 0.478 | ||
| T1–T2 | 55(29.3) | 20(25.0) | |
| T3–T4 | 133(70.7) | 60(75.0) |
SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA199 carbohydrate antigen 199
Fig. 3The ROC of the training (a) and validation (b) datasets for the MRI
Fig. 4The LASSO logistic regression model for radiomics feature selection. a The tuning parameter (λ) selection was based on a tenfold cross-validation in the LASSO model. The minimum criteria and one standard error of the minimum criteria (1-SE criteria) were used to place the vertical lines at the optimum values. A lambda of 0.068, with log(λ) = − 2.688 was chosen (1-SE criteria) for selecting features. b The LASSO coefficient profiles. The value selected by cross-validation was applied for drawing the vertical line and nine nonzero coefficients were shown
Risk factors for patients with LARC
| Factors | Univariate logistic regression | Multivariate logistic regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | 1.01 (0.98–1.04) | 0.484 | Not selected | Not selected |
| Gender | 1.40 (0.69–2.84) | 0.352 | Not selected | Not selected |
| Tumor diameter | 2.14 (1.60–2.87) | 0.99 (0.68–1.43) | 0.937 | |
| Location | 2.02 (1.09–3.75) | 1.47 (0.67–3.22) | 0.339 | |
| Differentiation degree | 0.71 (0.39–1.27) | 0.249 | Not selected | Not selected |
| CEA level | 4.08 (1.85–9.00) | 2.68 (1.03–7.00) | ||
| CA199 level | 5.83 (1.33–25.62) | 1.95 (0.39–9.66) | 0.416 | |
| Rad-score | 8.41 (4.31–16.38) | 7.45 (3.12–17.75) | ||
P values with statistical significance are shown in bold
LARC locally advanced rectal cancer, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA199 carbohydrate antigen 199
Fig. 5Radiomics nomogram for predicting LARC. The nomogram combining CEA and Rad-score was built from the training dataset (a). The ROC curves of the training (b) and validation (c) datasets for the radiomics nomogram
Fig. 6The calibration curves of the training (a) and validation (b) datasets
Fig. 7The DCA of the training (a) and validation (b) datasets
Characteristics of patients in the prospective study
| Clinical factors | Prospective study |
|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 63.59 ± 10.04 |
| Gender, no (%) | |
| Male | 18(56.2) |
| Female | 14(43.8) |
| Tumor diameter, median (IQR), cm | 4.5(4.0–5.5) |
| Location | |
| Lower | 14(43.8) |
| Middle | 17(53.1) |
| Upper | 1(3.1) |
| Differentiation degree | |
| Poorly | 3(9.4) |
| Moderately | 26(81.2) |
| Well | 3(9.4) |
| CEA level, no (%) | |
| Normal | 23(71.9) |
| Abnormal | 9(28.1) |
| CA199 level, no (%) | |
| Normal | 26(81.2) |
| Abnormal | 6(18.8) |
| Stage, no (%) | |
| T1–T2 | 10(31.3) |
| T3–T4 | 22(68.7) |
SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA199 carbohydrate antigen 199
Fig. 8The ROC (a) and DCA (b) of the nomogram