| Literature DB >> 34334138 |
Youyin Tang1, Tao Zhang2, Xianghong Zhou3, Yunuo Zhao2, Hanyue Xu2, Yichun Liu4, Hang Wang5, Zheyu Chen6, Xuelei Ma7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is an aggressive liver carcinoma with increasing incidence and mortality. A good auxiliary prognostic prediction tool is desperately needed for the development of treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to explore the prognostic value of the radiomics nomogram based on enhanced CT in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Machine learning; Nomogram; Prognosis; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34334138 PMCID: PMC8327418 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02162-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Study workflow. a ROI segmentation, b radiomics feature extraction and selection, c the procedure of construction of nomogram, d comparison of model performance, and e clinical decision analysis and survival comparison in the training set and validation set. OS, overall survival; ROI, region of interest; ROC, receiver operating characteristic
Fig. 2Patient selection flow diagram
The baseline characteristics of ICC patients in training and validation sets
| Variable | Whole set ( | Training set ( | Validation set ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, male, | 55 (54.5) | 40 (51.9) | 15 (62.5) | 0.365 |
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 58.2 ± 10.8 | 58.5 ± 10.9 | 56.9 ± 10.7 | 0.458 |
| Hypertension, | 0.995 | |||
| Yes | 21 (20.8) | 16 (20.8) | 5 (20.8) | |
| No | 80 (79.2) | 61 (79.2) | 19 (79.2) | |
| Diabetes, | 0.932 | |||
| Yes | 8 (7.9) | 6 (7.8) | 2 (8.3) | |
| No | 93 (92.1) | 71 (92.2) | 22 (91.7) | |
| Hepatitis B, | 27 (26.7) | 21 (27.3) | 6 (25.0) | 0.826 |
| Liver cirrhosis, | 0.074 | |||
| Present | 13 (12.9) | 7 (9.1) | 6 (25.0) | |
| Absent | 88 (87.1) | 70 (90.9) | 18 (75.0) | |
| Hypersplenism, | 0.421 | |||
| Yes | 2 (2.0) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (4.2) | |
| No | 99 (98.0) | 76 (98.7) | 23 (95.8) | |
| ALT, mean ± SD, IU/L | 36.0 ± 38.6 | 33.8 ± 37.3 | 43.3 ± 42.4 | 0.131 |
| AST, mean ± SD, IU/L | 38.7 ± 34.9 | 35.8 ± 34.4 | 48.6 ± 35.7 | 0.024 |
| ALB, mean ± SD, g/L | 41.6 ± 4.1 | 41.8 ± 3.7 | 41.2 ± 5.1 | 0.941 |
| TBIL, mean ± SD, μmol/L | 15.2 ± 16.5 | 13.6 ± 8.2 | 20.6 ± 30.7 | 0.095 |
| PT, mean ± SD, s | 11.7 ± 1.6 | 11.5 ± 1.0 | 12.3 ± 2.8 | 0.357 |
| INR, mean ± SD | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.362 |
| AFP, mean ± SD, ng/mL | 40.0 ± 189.7 | 29.1 ± 150.4 | 74.6 ± 283.6 | 0.624 |
| CA 125, mean ± SD, U/mL | 50.0 ± 82.8 | 47.3 ± 67.5 | 58.0 ± 120.9 | 0.106 |
| CA 19-9, mean ± SD, U/mL | 322.6 ± 393.5 | 321.2 ± 404.3 | 327.5 ± 365.4 | 0.515 |
| CEA, mean ± SD, ng/mL | 18.2 ± 71.1 | 13.0 ± 36.1 | 36.9 ± 137.6 | 0.333 |
| Tumor size, | 0.455 | |||
| ≤ 5 cm | 27 (26.7) | 22 (28.6) | 5 (20.8) | |
| > 5 cm | 74 (73.3) | 55 (71.4) | 19 (79.2) | |
| Differentiation | 0.084 | |||
| Well | 1 (1.0) | 0 | 1 (4.2) | |
| Moderate | 36 (35.6) | 31 (40.3) | 5 (20.8) | |
| Poor | 57 (56.4) | 40 (51.9) | 17 (70.8) | |
| Unclear | 7 (6.9) | 6 (7.8) | 1 (4.2) | |
| OS, mean ± SD, m | 19.9 ± 17.6 | 21.3 ± 18.6 | 15.6 ± 13.3 | 0.300 |
Abbreviations: ICC Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, SD Standard deviation, ALT Alanine aminotransferase, AST Aspartate aminotransferase, ALB Albumin, TBIL Total bilirubin, PT Prothrombin time, INR International normalized ratio, AFP Alpha fetoprotein, CA Carbohydrate antigen, CEA Carcinoembryonic antigen, OS Overall survival
Univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis of clinical factors influencing overall survival outcomes in the training cohort
| Variable | Univariate analysis, | Multivariate analysis, HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, male | 0.238 | ||
| Age, years | 0.148 | ||
| Hypertension | 0.804 | ||
| Diabetes | 0.334 | ||
| Hepatitis B | 0.324 | ||
| Liver cirrhosis | |||
| Absent | ref | ||
| Present | 2.227 (1.169–4.242) | ||
| Hypersplenism | 0.888 | ||
| ALT, IU/L | 0.582 | ||
| AST, IU/L | 0.750 | ||
| ALB, g/L | 0.650 | ||
| TBIL, μmol/L | 0.831 | ||
| PT, s | 0.247 | ||
| INR | 0.480 | ||
| AFP level, ng/mL | 0.696 | ||
| CA 125 level, U/mL | 0.839 | ||
| CA 19-9 level | |||
| < 35 U/mL | ref | ||
| ≥ 35 U/mL | 3.984 (2.146–7.407) | ||
| CEA level | 0.172 | ||
| Tumor size | |||
| ≤ 5 cm | ref | ||
| > 5 cm | 2.293 (1.263–4.167) | ||
| Differentiation | 0.409 |
Abbreviations: HR Hazard ratio, ALT Alanine aminotransferase, AST Aspartate aminotransferase, ALB Albumin, TBIL Total bilirubin, PT Prothrombin time, INR International normalized ratio, AFP Alpha fetoprotein, CA Carbohydrate antigen, CEA Carcinoembryonic antigen, ref Reference
Fig. 3Nomogram for 3- and 5-year OS in patients with ICC
Fig. 4Calibration curves for overall survival (OS) at 3 years and 5 years in patients with ICC. a Three-year survival rate in the training set. b Three-year survival rate in the validation set. c Five-year survival rate in the training set. d Five-year survival rate in the validation set. The horizontal axis was the survival rate predicted by the nomogram, and the vertical axis was the actual survival rate. The dashed line indicates the predicting survival rate completely fits the actual survival rate. In the training set and validation set, the prediction results of the nomogram were close to the actual results of 3-year and 5-year OS, showing the calibration curve was in good agreement
Fig. 5The ROC curves for overall survival (OS) at 3 years and 5 years in patients with ICC. a Three-year survival rate in the training set. b Three-year survival rate in the validation set. c Five-year survival rate in the training set. d Five-year survival rate in the validation set
Fig. 6Overall survival rate of patients stratified by risk classification in the whole set. The results showed that the overall survival rate of high-risk patients was significantly lower than that of low-risk patients (p = 0.018)
Fig. 7An example of using the radiomics nomogram to preoperatively predict overall survival probability in a 45-year-old female patient who underwent surgical resection