| Literature DB >> 34157487 |
Xiangyu Liu1, Dafu Zhang2, Zhenyu Liu3, Zhenhui Li2, Peiyi Xie4, Kai Sun1, Wei Wei5, Weixing Dai6, Zhenchao Tang7, Yingying Ding2, Guoxiang Cai6, Tong Tong8, Xiaochun Meng9, Jie Tian10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate predictions of distant metastasis (DM) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) are helpful in developing appropriate treatment plans. This study aimed to perform DM prediction through deep learning radiomics.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning radiomics; Distant metastasis; Locally advanced rectal cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34157487 PMCID: PMC8237293 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103442
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Clinical characteristics of patients in the primary and validation cohorts.
| 54.82 ± 10.85 | 55.23 ± 12.01 | 0.602 | |||
| 0.634 | |||||
| Male | 121 | 71.18% | 44 | 67.69% | |
| Female | 49 | 28.82% | 21 | 32.31% | |
| <0.001 | |||||
| High | 4 | 2.35% | 2 | 3.08% | |
| Mid | 100 | 58.82% | 17 | 26.15% | |
| Low | 66 | 38.82% | 46 | 70.77% | |
| <0.001 | |||||
| cT3 | 130 | 76.47% | 29 | 44.62% | |
| cT4 | 40 | 23.53% | 36 | 55.38% | |
| <0.001 | |||||
| LN negative | 25 | 14.71% | 28 | 43.08% | |
| LN positive | 145 | 85.29% | 37 | 56.92% | |
| 0.612 | |||||
| Normal | 130 | 76.47% | 47 | 72.31% | |
| Elevated | 40 | 23.53% | 18 | 27.69% | |
| Laparotomy | 79 | 46.47% | 57 | 87.69% | <0.001 |
| Laparoscopy | 91 | 53.53% | 8 | 12.31% | |
| 0.842 | |||||
| ypT0 | 24 | 14.12% | 7 | 10.77% | |
| ypT1 | 14 | 8.24% | 3 | 4.62% | |
| ypT2 | 26 | 15.29% | 11 | 16.92% | |
| ypT3 | 94 | 55.29% | 39 | 60.00% | |
| ypT4 | 12 | 7.06% | 5 | 7.69% | |
| 0.021 | |||||
| ypN0 | 113 | 66.47% | 34 | 52.31% | |
| ypN1 | 35 | 20.59% | 25 | 38.46% | |
| ypN2 | 22 | 12.94% | 6 | 9.23% | |
| 0.060 | |||||
| Yes | 160 | 94.12% | 56 | 86.15% | |
| No | 10 | 5.88% | 9 | 13.85% | |
| 0.298 | |||||
| Yes | 6 | 3.53% | 5 | 7.69% | |
| No | 164 | 96.47% | 60 | 92.31% | |
| 0.031 | |||||
| Yes | 42 | 24.71% | 26 | 40.00% | |
| No | 128 | 75.29% | 39 | 60.00% | |
| 0.502 | |||||
| Yes | 7 | 4.12% | 4 | 6.15% | |
| No | 163 | 95.88% | 61 | 93.85% | |
Note: P-values were calculated by Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test or Fisher exact test.
Fig. 1ROC curves of prognostic performance with different deep learning models of the (a) primary cohort (n = 162) and (b) external validation cohort (n = 62). ROC receiver operating characteristic; AUC area under receiver operating characteristic curve; T2W T2-weighted; ADC apparent diffusion coefficient.
Fig. 2Predictive performance of DLRS for DMFS. (a) and (b) are time-dependent ROC curves for one year, two years and three years of the primary cohort (n = 170) and external validation cohort (n = 65). (c) and (d) are K-M curves for stratifying high- and low-risk patients of DM of the primary cohort (P < 0·0001, log-rank test) and external validation cohort (P < 0·0001, log-rank test). The numbers of patients at risk for each time step are shown in the bottom. DLRS deep learning risk signature; DMFS distant metastasis free survival; ROC receiver operating characteristic; AUC area under receiver operating characteristic curve.
Model performances in the primary and validation cohorts.
| Model | C-index | 95%CI | C-index | 95%CI | ||
| Nomogram | 0.865 | 0.814-0.916 | 0.775 | 0.695-0.856 | ||
| Clinical | 0.714 | 0.632-0.797 | 0.601 | 0.487-0.732 | ||
| DLRS | 0.851 | 0.795-0.906 | 0.747 | 0.665-0.830 | ||
| T2W | 0.854 | 0.802-0.905 | 0.729 | 0.640-0.819 | ||
| ADC | 0.688 | 0.615-0.761 | 0.599 | 0.473-0.724 | ||
| NRI | 95%CI | NRI | 95%CI | |||
| Nomogram vs. Clinical | 0.599 | 0.501-0.697 | <0.001* | 0.395 | 0.195-0.595 | <0.001* |
| DLRS vs. Clinical | 0.529 | 0.406-0.651 | <0.001* | 0.286 | 0.089-0.483 | 0.004* |
| IDI | 95%CI | IDI | 95%CI | P-value | ||
| Nomogram vs. Clinical | 0.409 | 0.310-0.508 | <0.001* | 0.260 | 0.117-0.402 | < 0.001* |
| DLRS vs. Clinical | 0.384 | 0.275-0.493 | <0.001* | 0.187 | 0.023-0.352 | 0.026* |
Note: *P-value < 0.05, P-values were calculated by NRI test and IDI test.
Abbreviations: DLRS, deep learning radiomic signature; T2W, T2-weighted; ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.
Fig. 3Integrated nomogram and evaluation of the nomogram in multi centers. (a) is a nomogram for individual prediction of DMFS combined with deep MRI information and clinicopathological factors. (b) and (c) are the decision curves of integrated nomogram/clinical model of the primary cohort (n = 170) and external validation cohort (n = 65). (d) and (e) are the plots of true- and false-positive rates of the primary cohort and external validation cohort, as functions of the risk threshold for integrated nomogram. (f) and (g) are clinical impact curves for 1000 random patients based on the integrated nomogram of the primary cohort and external validation cohort. 95% confidence intervals constructed via bootstrapping is displayed on both sides of the ROC components plot or clinical impact plot. ROC receiver operating characteristic; DMFS distant metastasis free survival; MRI magnetic resonance imaging.
Fig. 4Nomogram-based K-M curves of patients with different responses to nCRT. (a) and (b) are the K-M DMFS curves for pCR (P = 0•0059, log-rank test) and non-pCR (P < 0•0001, log-rank test) patient subgroup. (c) and (d) are the K-M DMFS curves for downstaging (ypT0-2N0) (P < 0•0001, log-rank test) and non-downstaging (P < 0•0001, log-rank test) patient subgroup. The numbers of patients at risk for each time step are shown in the bottom. nCRT neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; DMFS distant metastasis free survival; pCR pathologic complete response.