| Literature DB >> 34130644 |
Yanfen Fan1,2, Yixing Yu1,2, Ximing Wang1,2, Mengjie Hu1,2, Chunhong Hu3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nuclear protein Ki-67 indicates the status of cell proliferation and has been regarded as an attractive biomarker for the prognosis of HCC. The aim of this study is to investigate which radiomics model derived from different sequences and phases of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI was superior to predict Ki-67 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), then further to validate the optimal model for preoperative prediction of Ki-67 expression in HCC.Entities:
Keywords: Enhanced MRI; Gd-EOB-DTPA; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Radiomics; Vessels encapsulating tumor clusters
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34130644 PMCID: PMC8204550 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-021-00633-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Baseline clinical characteristics of the training and validation cohort
| Total (n = 151) | Training (n = 103) | Validation (n = 48) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age(years), median (IQR) | 58.0 (51.0, 67.0) | 61.0 (50.3, 68.0) | 56.0 (51.0, 64.0) | 0.307 |
| Gender, no.(%) | 0.355 | |||
| Male | 119 (78.8) | 79 (76.7) | 40 (83.3) | |
| Female | 32 (21.2) | 24 (23.3) | 8(16.7) | |
| ALT, (U/L), median (IQR) | 33.5 (20.8, 47.8) | 29.70 (20.7, 45.3) | 35.4 (20.9, 52.9) | 0.220 |
| AST, (U/L), median (IQR) | 33.0 (24.4, 44.1) | 32.4 (24.5, 43.4) | 33.9 (24.0, 49.8) | 0.407 |
| GGT, (U/L), median (IQR) | 50.8 (29.2, 108.8) | 49.6 (30.2, 92.7) | 52.1 (27.9, 144.5) | 0.771 |
| AFP, (µg/L), median(IQR) | 15.3 (3.1, 417.5) | 15.5 (3.1, 527.4) | 11.6 (2.9, 301.6) | 0.718 |
| AFP group.no(%) | 0.555 | |||
| ≤ 20 µg/L | 79 (52.3) | 54 (52.4) | 25 (52.1) | |
| 20–400 µg/L | 34 (22.5) | 21 (20.4) | 13 (27.1) | |
| > 400 µg/L | 38 (25.2) | 28 (27.2) | 10 (20.8) | |
| Hepatitis B, no.(%) | 0.856 | |||
| Negative | 36 (23.8) | 25 (24.3) | 11 (22.9) | |
| Positive | 115 (76.2) | 78 (75.7) | 37 (77.1) | |
| Hepatitis C, no.(%) | 1.000 | |||
| Negative | 145 (96.0) | 99 (96.1) | 46 (95.8) | |
| Positive | 6 (4.0) | 4 (3.9) | 2 (4.2) | |
| Cirrhosis, no.(%) | 0.520 | |||
| Negative | 43 (28.5) | 31 (30.1) | 12 (25.0) | |
| Positive | 108 (71.5) | 72 (69.9) | 36 (75.0) | |
| Tumor grade, no.(%) | 0.398 | |||
| Low-grade tumor | 100 (66.2) | 71(68.9) | 29(60.4) | |
| High-grade tumor | 51(33.8) | 32 (31.0) | 19(39.6) |
AFP alpha-fetoprotein, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, GGT gamma-glutamyltransferase
Baseline clinical characteristics of the high and low Ki-67 expression in training and validation cohort
| Training (n = 103) | Validation (n = 48) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Ki-67 (n = 80) | Low Ki-67 (n = 23) |
| High Ki-67 (n = 32) | Low Ki-67 (n = 16) |
| |||
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 61.0 (49.0, 67.5) | 64.0 (51.3, 70.5) | 0.292 | 54.5 (49.5, 62.0) | 57.5.4 (52.5, 70.5) | 0.116 | ||
| Gender, no.(%) | 0.721 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Male | 62 (77.5) | 17 (73.9) | 27 (84.4) | 13 (81.3) | ||||
| Female | 18 (22.5) | 6 (26.1) | 5 (15.6) | 3 (18.7) | ||||
| ALT,(U/L), median(IQR) | 34.3 (21.1, 46.5) | 25.0 (19.9, 38.8) | 0.207 | 34.4 (16.0, 35.9) | 49.3 (18.3, 73.1) | 0.246 | ||
| AST, (U/L), median(IQR) | 33.1 (24.8, 43.3) | 30.0 (24.5, 42.5) | 0.553 | 32.1 (21.9, 35.6) | 44.1 (23.7, 65.4) | 0.341 | ||
| GGT, (U/L), median(IQR) | 49.7 (30.7, 109.8) | 46.1 (30.2, 66.0) | 0.303 | 58.7 (16.0, 80.6) | 36.8 (27.0, 179.5) | 0.974 | ||
| AFP, (µg/L), median(IQR) | 44.4 (4.5, 946.8) | 3.3 (1.9, 15.4) | 0.000 | 55.7(2.5, 199.3) | 3.8 (2.1, 19.5) | 0.006 | ||
| AFP group.no(%) | 0.000 | 0.026 | ||||||
| ≤ 20 µg/L | 35 (43.8) | 19 (82.6) | 13 (40.6) | 12 (75.0) | ||||
| 20–400 µg/L | 18 (22.5) | 3 (13.1) | 10 (31.3) | 3 (18.8) | ||||
| > 400 µg/L | 27 (33.7) | 1 (4.3) | 9 (28.1) | 1 (6.2) | ||||
| Hepatitis B, no.(%) | 0.003 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Negative | 16 (20.0) | 9 (39.1) | 7 (21.9) | 4 (25.0) | ||||
| Positive | 64 (80.0) | 14 (60.9) | 25 (78.1) | 12 (75.0) | ||||
| Hepatitis C, no.(%) | 0.573 | |||||||
| Negative | 76 (95.0) | 23 (100) | 31 (96.9) | 15 (93.8) | 1.000 | |||
| Positive | 4 (5.0) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.1) | 1 (6.2) | ||||
| Cirrhosis, no.(%) | 0.114 | 0.499 | ||||||
| Negative | 21 (26.3) | 10 (43.5) | 7 (21.9) | 5 (31.3) | ||||
| Positive | 59 (73.7) | 13 (56.5) | 25 (78.1) | 11 (68.7) | ||||
| Tumor grade, no.(%) | 0.040 | 0.040 | ||||||
| Low-grade tumor | 45 (56.3) | 19 (82.6) | 21(65.6) | 15 (93.7) | ||||
| High-grade tumor | 35 (43.7) | 4 (17.4) | 11 (34.4) | 1(6.3) | ||||
AFP alpha-fetoprotein, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, GGT gamma-glutamyltransferase
Fig. 1Feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression in AP radiomics model. a Tuning parameter (λ) selection in the LASSO model used 5-fold cross-validation. Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values by using the minimum criteria and the 1 standard error of the minimum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). A λ value of 0.045, with log (λ), − 2.725 was chosen (1-SE criteria). b Vertical line was drawn at the value selected, where optimal λ resulted in 12 nonzero coefficients
Comparison of the predictive performance of the five models in predicting Ki-67 expression
| Models | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training (n = 103) | 0.873 (79.3–93.0) | 92.5 (74/80) | 78.3 (18/23) | 89.3 (92/103) | 93.7 (74/79) | 75.0 (18/24) |
| Validation (n = 48) | 0.813 (67.4–91.1) | 81.3 (26/32) | 81.3 (13/16) | 81.3 (39/48) | 89.7 (26/29) | 68.4 (13/19) |
| Total (n = 151) | 0.837 (76.8 89.2) | 90.2 (101/112) | 69.2 (27/39) | 91.4 (138/151) | 89.4 (101/113) | 71.1 (27/38) |
| Training (n = 103) | 0.813 (72.4–88.3) | 98.8 (79/80) | 47.8 (11/23) | 87.4 (90/103) | 86.8 (79/91) | 91.7 (11/12) |
| Validation (n = 48) | 0.740 (59.3–85.6) | 84.4 (27/32) | 62.5 (10/16) | 89.6 (43/48) | 81.8 (27/33) | 66.7 (10/15) |
| Total (n = 151) | 0.793 (72.0-85.5) | 87.5 (98/112) | 59.0 (23/39) | 80.1 (121/151) | 86.0 (98/114) | 62.2 (23/37) |
| Training (n = 103) | 0.889 (81.2–94.4) | 72.5 (58/80) | 95.7 (22/23) | 77.7 (80/103) | 98.3 (58/59) | 50.0 (22/44) |
| Validation (n = 48) | 0.698 (54.9–82.2) | 90.6 (29/32) | 43.8 (7/16) | 75.0 (36/48) | 76.3 (29/38) | 70.0 (7/10) |
| Total (n = 151) | 0.823 (75.2, 88.0) | 67.9 (76/112) | 68.4 (27/39) | 68.2 (103/151) | 86.4 (76/88) | 42.9 (27/63) |
| Training (n = 103) | 0.880 (0.802–0.936) | 86.2 (69/80) | 82.6 (19/23) | 70.9 (73/103) | 78.4 (69/88) | 26.7 (4/15) |
| Validation (n = 48) | 0.799 (0.658–0.901) | 75.0 (24/32) | 75.0 (12/16) | 75.0 (36/48) | 85.7 (24/28) | 60.0 (12/20) |
| Total (n = 151) | 0.852 (78.5, 90.4) | 83.9 (94/112) | 76.9 (30/39) | 82.1 (124/151) | 91.3 (94/103) | 62.5 (30/48) |
| Training (n = 103) | 0.922 (0.852–0.965) | 98.7 (79/80) | 78.3 (18/23) | 94.2 (97/103) | 94.0 (79/84) | 94.7 (18/19) |
| Validation (n = 48) | 0.863 (73.3–94.5) | 90.6 (29/32) | 75.0 (12/16) | 85.4 (41/48) | 87.9 (29/33) | 80.0 (12/15) |
| Total (n = 151) | 0.806 (73.4–86.6) | 83.0 (93/112) | 64.1 (25/39) | 78.1 (118/151) | 86.9 (93/107) | 56.8 (25/44) |
AP alpha-fetoprotein, AUC area under receiver operating characteristic curve, HBP hepatobiliary phase, NPV negative predictive value, PPV positive predictive value
aCombined model includes AP Rad-score and serum AFP level
Fig. 2ROC curves for the radiomics model in predicting Ki-67 expression in the training and validation cohort, respectively. a ROC curve in training cohort. b ROC curve in validation cohort
Fig. 3Decision curve analysis of the AP, HBP, T2W radiomics model and combined radiomics model in the validation cohort. The red line, blue line, yellow line, and green line represent the AP, HBP, T2W and the combined radiomics model, respectively. The combined model includes AP Rad-score and serum AFP level. The curve of AP radiomics model was generally higher than that of HBP and T2W radiomics model. Decision curve shows that at a range threshold probability of 30-60 %, the combined model is optimal decision-making strategy to add the net benefit compared with AP radiomics model only
Fig. 4Decision curve analysis of the AP, combined AP and HBP radiomics model in validation cohort. The red line and blue line represent the AP, and combined AP and HBP radiomics model. The decision curve shows that combined AP and HBP radiomics model does not result in extra significant benefits compared with AP radiomics model in validation cohort
Fig. 5Calibration curve for the combined model in training and validation cohort. a Calibration curves for the combined model in training cohort. b Calibration curves for the combined model in validation cohort