| Literature DB >> 34149920 |
Tengfei Li1,2, Zekuan Yu3,4, Yan Yang2, Zhongmao Fu1, Ziang Chen5, Qi Li6, Kundong Zhang1, Zai Luo1, Zhengjun Qiu1, Chen Huang1.
Abstract
Background: Tumor stroma percentage (TSP), as an independent, low-cost prognostic factor, could complement current pathology and act as a more feasible risk factor for prognosis. However, TSP hadn't been applied into TNM staging. Here, the objective of our study was to investigate the prognostic significance of TSP in a robust rapid multi-dynamic approach with the application of MATLAB and threshold Algorithm for Gray Image analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Gary image; Rapid multi-dynamic; Threshold algorithm; Tumor stroma percentage
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149920 PMCID: PMC8210572 DOI: 10.7150/jca.58887
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Clinicopathological data for SGH cohort in relation to TSP
| Variable | TSP-manual | TSP-cad(50%) | TSP-cad(median) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | TSP-low (%) | TSP-high (%) | p value | N | TSP-low (%) | TSP-high (%) | P value | N | TSP-low (%) | TSP-high (%) | P value | |
| 0.815 | 0.898 | 0.340 | ||||||||||
| <65 | 461 | 294(46.0%) | 167(46.8%) | 461 | 330(46.4%) | 131(46.0%) | 461 | 238(47.8%) | 223(44.8%) | |||
| ≥65 | 535 | 345(54.0%) | 190(53.2%) | 535 | 381(53.6%) | 154(54.0%) | 535 | 260(52.2%) | 275(55.2%) | |||
| 0.458 | 0.462 | 0.797 | ||||||||||
| Male | 576 | 364(57.0%) | 212(59.4%) | 576 | 406(57.1%) | 170(59.6%) | 576 | 290(58.2%) | 286(57.4%) | |||
| Female | 420 | 275(43.0%) | 145(40.6%) | 420 | 305(42.9%) | 115(40.4%) | 420 | 208(41.8%) | 212(42.6%) | |||
| 0.024* | 0.025* | 0.004* | ||||||||||
| I+II | 610 | 408(63.8%) | 202(56.6%) | 610 | 451(63.4%) | 159(55.8%) | 610 | 327(65.7%) | 283(56.8%) | |||
| III+IV | 386 | 231(36.2%) | 155(43.4%) | 386 | 260(36.6%) | 126(44.2%) | 386 | 171(34.3%) | 215(43.2%) | |||
| 0.326 | 0.397 | 0.299 | ||||||||||
| T1+T2 | 195 | 131(20.5%) | 64(17.9%) | 195 | 144(20.3%) | 51(17.9%) | 195 | 104(20.9%) | 91(18.3%) | |||
| T3+T4 | 801 | 508(79.5%) | 293(82.1%) | 801 | 567(79.7%) | 234(82.1%) | 801 | 394(79.1%) | 407(81.7%) | |||
| 0.035* | 0.035* | 0.005* | ||||||||||
| N0 | 607 | 405(63.4%) | 202(56.6%) | 607 | 448(63.0%) | 159(55.8%) | 607 | 325(65.3%) | 282(56.6%) | |||
| N1+N2 | 389 | 234(36.6%0 | 155(43.4%) | 389 | 263(37.0%) | 126(44.2%) | 389 | 173(34.7%) | 216(43.4%) | |||
| 0.558 | 0.382 | 0.277 | ||||||||||
| NO | 739 | 478(74.8%) | 261(73.1%) | 739 | 533(75.0%) | 206(72.3%) | 739 | 377(75.7%) | 362(72.7%) | |||
| YES | 257 | 161(25.2%) | 96(26.9%) | 257 | 178(25.0%) | 79(27.7%) | 257 | 121(24.3%) | 136(27.3%) | |||
| 0.408 | 0.261 | 0.453 | ||||||||||
| NO | 683 | 444(69.5%) | 239(66.9%) | 683 | 495(69.6%) | 188(66.0%) | 683 | 347(69.7%) | 336(67.5%) | |||
| YES | 313 | 195(30.5%) | 118(31.1%) | 313 | 216(30.4%) | 97(34.0%) | 313 | 151(30.3%) | 162(32.5%) | |||
| 0.122 | 0.240 | 0.307 | ||||||||||
| Well | 85 | 48(7.5%) | 37(10.4%) | 85 | 56(7.9%) | 29(10.2%) | 85 | 38(7.6%) | 47(9.4%) | |||
| Moderate+poor | 911 | 591(92.5%) | 320(89.6%) | 911 | 655(92.1%) | 256(89.8%) | 911 | 460(92.4%) | 451(90.6%) | |||
| 0.476 | 0.174 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
| <5 cm | 620 | 403(63.1%) | 217(60.8%) | 620 | 452(63.6%) | 168(58.9%) | 620 | 310(62.2%) | 310(62.2%) | |||
| ≥5 cm | 376 | 236(63.9%) | 140(39.2%) | 376 | 259(36.4%) | 117(41.1%) | 376 | 188(37.8%) | 188(37.8%) | |||
| 0.762 | 0.481 | 0.418 | ||||||||||
| Right | 326 | 207(32.4%) | 119(33.3%) | 326 | 228(32.1%) | 98(34.4%) | 326 | 169(33.9%) | 157(31.5%) | |||
| Left and rectal | 670 | 432(67.7%) | 238(66.7%) | 670 | 483(67.9%) | 187(65.6%) | 670 | 329(66.1%) | 341(68.5%) | |||
Note. P-value is derived from the univariable association analyses between each of the clinicopathological variables and treatment response. The clinical characters were the data from the initial diagnosis.
Abbreviations: LN metastasis: Lymph node metastasis.
*P < 0.05.
Figure 1Example of a manual assessment at the tumor level. (WSI) Pathology signature construction in hematoxylin and eosin stained whole slide images. ROI, Area was annotated by a pathologist highlighting the region of interest. (A) Red annotation is the most invasive part. (B) Blue annotation. (C) Green annotation. (D) images were annotated using Black-tumor, Purple-stroma and Green-necrosis. A: red annotation, is the most invasive part; B: blue annotation; C: green annotation; Black: tumor; Purple: stroma; Green: necrosis.
Figure 2Manual visually assessment TSP. (A) TSP-manuala=20%≤50% was categorized as TSP-low with long OS. (B)TSP-manuala=70%>50% was regarded as TSP-high with short OS. Pathologista consensus.
Figure 3Representative matched H&E and segmented images of tumor (black), stroma (purple) and necrosis (green) using the pixel classifier algorithm in MATLAB. Top row: Stroma hot-spot rectangle, 100 ×150 μm across, selected by the observers for the assessment of TSP-manual and extracted with a diameter of x400 field for processing by the MATLAB Bottom row: The same regions in tissues was segmented by MATLAB to calculate TSP-cad. Pathologista consensus; Necrosisb includes classes: fat, muscle, lymphocyte infiltrations, healthy epithelium, erythrocytes.
Figure 4Schematic representation of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for overall survival of TSP-low verse TSP-high. Results for SGH cohort (A), Training cohort (B), Testing cohort (C), TMA internal cohort (D), TCGA external cohort (E) according to the TSP classifier stratified by clinicopathological risk factors. P-values were calculated by log-rank test.
Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis for overall survival in the SGH cohort
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSP-manuala | TSP-cad(50%) | TSP-cad(median) | ||||||
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | |
| <65 | 1 | |||||||
| ≥65 | 2.368 | 1.646-3.407 | ||||||
| Male | 1 | |||||||
| Female | 0.613 | 0.413-0.909 | ||||||
| I+II | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| III+IV | 3.54 | 2.404-5.212* | 1.176 | 0.457-3.023 | 1.198 | 0.473-3.037 | 1.241 | 0.501-3.075 |
| T1+T2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| T3+T4 | 2.878 | 1.504-5.506* | 1.401 | 0.771-2.762 | 1.402 | 0.711-2.765 | 1.383 | 0.701-2.729 |
| N0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| N1+N2 | 3.724 | 2.516-5.512* | 2.372 | 0.908-6.197 | 2.349 | 0.912-6.049 | 2.228 | 0.884-5.615 |
| NO | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| YES | 2.298 | 1.575-3.353* | 1.397 | 0.917-2.130 | 1.421 | 0.943-2.164 | 1.413 | 0.928-2.152 |
| NO | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| YES | 2.684 | 1.858-3.875* | 1.575 | 1.034-2.400* | 1.565 | 1.028-2.383* | 1.574 | 1.034-2.398* |
| Well | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Moderate+poor | 2.574 | 1.050-6.312* | 1.964 | 0.795-4.851 | 1.986 | 0.804-4.910 | 1.957 | 0.799-4.877 |
| <5 cm | 1 | |||||||
| ≥5 cm | 1.287 | 0.889-1.862 | ||||||
| Right | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Left and rectal | 0.502 | 0.348-0.723* | 0.498 | 0.342-0.725* | 0.492 | 0.329-0.717* | 0.486 | 0.334-0.707* |
| TSP-low | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| TSP-high | 1.75 | 1.214-2.523* | 1.516 | 1.048-2.193* | ||||
| TSP-low | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| TSP-high | 1.659 | 1.145-2.405* | 1.452 | 0.999-2.111*b | ||||
| TSP-low | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| TSP-high | 1.823 | 1.239-2.683* | 1.608 | 1.089-2.375* | ||||
aPathology consensus;
bDuo to P-values is 0.051,which is near to 0.05, and shall be considered to siginificant results (P<0.05);
Abbreviations: HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; LN metastasis:Lymph node metastasis.
*P < 0.05.
Comparison between TSP-manual and TSP-cad in the segmentation of tumor stroma
| TN | TP | FN | TP | sensitivity | specificity | Precision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | 634 | 77 | 5 | 280 | 98.25% | 89.17% | 78.43% |
Figure 6ROC curve of the TSP-manualc in the SGH cohort.
Figure 7Scatter plot of TSP in 996 patients for Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2. Overlapping parts indicated the consistent situation (321 in total) for the observers and the isolated one (24 in total) the inconsistent.
Cross-tabulation of Pathologist 1 versus Pathologist 2 after dichotomisation in SGH cohort
| Pathologist 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TSP-low | TSP-high | Total | |
| TSP-low | 621 | 18 | 639 |
| TSP-high | 184 | 173 | 357 |
| Total | 805 | 191 | 996 |
Cross-tabulation of TSP-manual versus TSP-cad after dichotomisation in the SGH cohort
| TSP-manuala | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TSP-low | TSP-high | Total | |
| TSP-low | 634 | 77 | 711 |
| TSP-high | 5 | 280 | 285 |
| Total | 639 | 357 | 996 |
| TSP-low | 457 | 41 | 498 |
| TSP-high | 182 | 316 | 498 |
| Total | 639 | 357 | 996 |
TSP-high was associated with TNM stage and lymph node metastasis in comparison to TSP-low in SGH, Training, Testing, TMA internal, TCGA external cohort
| TSP-manual | TSP-cad (50%) | TSP-cad(median) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| p value | |||
| SGH cohort | 0.024* | 0.025* | 0.004* |
| Training cohort | 0.423 | 0.323 | 0.052 |
| Testing cohort | 0.003* | 0.008* | 0.023* |
| TMA cohort | 0.001* | NA | 0.001* |
| TCGA cohort | 0.024* | NA | 0.032* |
| SGH cohort | 0.035* | 0.035* | 0.005* |
| Training cohort | 0.367 | 0.258 | 0.063 |
| Testing cohort | 0.012* | 0.026* | 0.023* |
| TMA cohort | 0.001* | NA | 0.002* |
| TCGA cohort | 0.028* | NA | 0.036* |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable. Due to we do not evaluate TSP using MATLAB of CAD system in the TMA and TCGA cohort, thus we lack of TSP-cad(50%)data in TMA and TCGA cohort.
*P < 0.05.