| Literature DB >> 34422624 |
Qiaoyou Weng1, Junguo Hui1, Hailin Wang1, Chuanqiang Lan1, Jiansheng Huang1, Chun Zhao2, Liyun Zheng1, Shiji Fang1, Minjiang Chen1, Chenying Lu1, Yuyan Bao3, Peipei Pang4, Min Xu1, Weibo Mao5, Zufei Wang1, Jianfei Tu1, Yuan Huang5, Jiansong Ji1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a radiomic feature-based nomogram for preoperative discriminating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activating mutation from wild-type EGFR in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. MATERIAL: A group of 301 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed. The EGFR mutation status was determined by ARMS PCR analysis. All patients underwent nonenhanced CT before surgery. Radiomic features were extracted (GE healthcare). The maximum relevance minimum redundancy (mRMR) and LASSO, were used to select features. We incorporated the independent clinical features into the radiomic feature model and formed a joint model (i.e., the radiomic feature-based nomogram). The performance of the joint model was compared with that of the other two models.Entities:
Keywords: EGFR-activating mutation; NSCLC; clinical features; nomogram; radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34422624 PMCID: PMC8377542 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.590937
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Characteristics of 301 NSCLC patients, according to the presence of the EGFR activating mutation.
| Univariate Cox regression | Multivariate Cox regression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | EGFR Activating Mutation | EGFR Wild Type | P | P | |
|
|
| NA | |||
| Male | 156 | 103 | 53 | ||
| Female | 145 | 49 | 96 | ||
|
| 64.95 ± 10.52 | 64.68 ± 10.70 | 65.23 ± 10.36 | 0.647 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Active | 110 | 79 | 31 | ||
| Inactive | 191 | 73 | 118 | ||
|
| 1.9 (2.9, 4.6) | 3.15 (1.98, 5.03) | 2.6 (1.8, 4.2) | 0.062 | |
|
| 9.08 (2.23, 30.39) | 12.64 (2.78, 45.59) | 6.86 (1.73, 25.50) |
| NA |
|
| 0.094 | ||||
| Left Upper | 89 | 39 | 50 | ||
| Left Middle | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Left Lower | 54 | 26 | 28 | ||
| Right Upper | 78 | 36 | 42 | ||
| Right Middle | 16 | 10 | 6 | ||
| Right Lower | 64 | 41 | 23 | ||
|
| >0.999 | ||||
| Primary Cancer | 296 | 149 | 147 | ||
| Metastasis Cancer | 5 | 3 | 2 | ||
|
| 0.393 | ||||
| Peripheral | 140 | 67 | 73 | ||
| Central | 161 | 85 | 76 | ||
|
| 0.636 | ||||
| Present | 16 | 9 | 7 | ||
| Absent | 285 | 143 | 142 | ||
|
| 0.259 | ||||
| Regular | 36 | 15 | 21 | ||
| Irregular | 265 | 137 | 128 | ||
|
| 0.51 | ||||
| Present | 274 | 140 | 134 | ||
| Absent | 27 | 12 | 15 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
| Present | 199 | 91 | 108 | ||
| Absent | 102 | 61 | 41 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
| Present | 80 | 31 | 49 | ||
| Absent | 221 | 121 | 100 | ||
|
|
| NA | |||
| Present | 113 | 68 | 45 | ||
| Absent | 188 | 84 | 104 | ||
|
| 0.136 | ||||
| Present | 240 | 116 | 124 | ||
| Absent | 61 | 36 | 25 | ||
|
| 0.547 | ||||
| Present | 35 | 16 | 19 | ||
| Absent | 266 | 136 | 130 | ||
|
| 0.189 | ||||
| Present | 83 | 47 | 36 | ||
| Absent | 218 | 105 | 113 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
| Normal | 96 | 1 | 95 | ||
| Abnormal | 205 | 148 | 57 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
| Normal | 258 | 136 | 122 | ||
| Abnormal | 43 | 13 | 30 | ||
|
|
| NA | |||
| Normal | 68 | 1 | 67 | ||
| Abnormal | 233 | 148 | 85 | ||
|
|
| NA | |||
| Normal | 98 | 3 | 95 | ||
| Abnormal | 203 | 146 | 57 | ||
|
| 0.952 | ||||
| Normal | 269 | 133 | 136 | ||
| Abnormal | 32 | 16 | 16 | ||
Age is expressed as Mean ± SD. Size, and volume are expressed as Quantiles (Q1, Q3)/Median (interquartile range). Otherwise, data are number of patients.
CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen, SCCA, Squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CYFRA21-1, Cytokeratin 19-fragments, NSE, Neuron specific enolase, ProGRP, Progastrin-releasing peptide. The P value marked bold indicated statistical significance.
Figure 1Selection of radiomic features associated with EGFR-activating mutations using the LASSO regression model. (A) Cross-validation curve. An optimal log lambda (0.03) was selected, and 9 non-zero coefficients were chosen. (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 396 radiomic features against the deviance explained. (C) Histogram showing the contribution of the selected parameters with their regression coefficients in the signature construction.
Figure 2Difference in the Radscore between NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR and EGFR-activating mutations in training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B).
Figure 3Comparison of performance among the three developed models for the prediction of EGFR-activating mutations in NSCLC patients. ROC curves of clinical features alone, radiomic features alone and combined features in the training (A) and validation (B) cohorts.
Predictive performance of the three models in the training and validation cohorts.
| Model | Accuracy [95%CI] | AUC [95%CI] | Sensitivity | Specificity | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Radiomic features | 0.76 [0.70-0.82] | 0.70 [0.63-0.77] | 0.74 | 0.79 | P < 0.0001 |
| Clinical features | 0.71 [0.64-0.77] | 0.77 [0.71-0.84] | 0.69 | 0.72 | P < 0.0001 |
| Joint features | 0.68 [0.61-0.74] | 0.81 [0.75-0.87] | 0.84 | 0.51 | P < 0.0001 |
|
| |||||
| Radiomic features | 0.72 [0.60-0.80] | 0.67 [0.55-0.78] | 0.67 | 0.79 | P = 0.0038 |
| Clinical features | 0.63 [0.52-0.73] | 0.67 [0.55-0.78] | 0.62 | 0.64 | P = 0.0043 |
| Joint features | 0.66 [0.55-0.76] | 0.75 [0.65-0.86] | 0.76 | 0.57 | P < 0.0001 |
AUC, Area under the curve; 95%CI, Confidence interval. The P value marked bold indicated statistical significance.
Figure 4Nomogram for the prediction of EGFR-activating mutations based on the training cohort and the calibration curve for model evaluation. (A) Radiomic nomogram constructed with the clinical characteristics and Radscore. Calibration curves were used to assess the consistency between the nomogram-predicted EGFR-activating mutation probability and the actual fraction of EGFR-activating mutations in both the training (B) and validation (C) cohorts (D). DCA for the prediction of EGFR-activating mutations in NSCLC patients for each model. The X-axis represents the threshold probability, and the Y-axis represents the net benefit. The net benefit is calculated by adding the benefits (true-positive results) and subtracting the risks (false-positive results), with the latter weighted by a factor related to the harm of an undetected cancer relative to the harm of unnecessary treatment. The red curve indicates the nomogram, which represents the joint prediction model composed of radiomic features and clinical indicators. The green curve represents the clinical feature model, while the blue curve represents the radiomic feature model. Our joint prediction model outperformed both the other models and simple strategies, such as the follow-up of all patients (grey line) or no patients (horizontal black line), across the majority of the range of threshold probabilities at which a patient would choose to undergo a follow-up imaging examination.