| Literature DB >> 34434892 |
Bujian Pan1, Weiteng Zhang1, Wenjing Chen1, Jingwei Zheng1, Xinxin Yang1, Jing Sun1, Xiangwei Sun2, Xiaodong Chen2, Xian Shen1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are shortcomings in diagnosing gastric cancer with or without serous invasion, making it difficult for patients to receive appropriate treatment. Therefore, we aimed to develop a radiomic nomogram for preoperative identification of serosal invasion.Entities:
Keywords: gastric cancer; radiologic tumor invasion index; radiomics; serosal invasion; spleen
Year: 2021 PMID: 34434892 PMCID: PMC8381151 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.682456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinical characteristics of patients.
| Random allocation | Training group | Verification group | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 189 | 126 | |
|
| 22.9 ± 3.1 | 22.7 ± 2.9 | 0.709 |
|
| 64.9 ± 9.3 | 64.8 ± 9.1 | 0.360 |
|
| 16 (12-18) | 15.5 (11-19) | 0.732 |
|
| 0.430 | ||
| Female | 43 (23.1%) | 34 (27.0%) | |
| Male | 146 (76.9%) | 92 (73.0%) | |
|
| 0.456 | ||
| 1-2 | 126 (67.0%) | 77 (61.1%) | |
| 3-4 | 50 (26.5%) | 42 (33.3%) | |
| 5-6 | 12 (6.5%) | 7 (5.5%) | |
|
| 0.778 | ||
| 1-2 | 155 (81.9%) | 105 (83.4%) | |
| 3-4 | 34 (18.1%) | 21 (16.6%) | |
|
| 0.229 | ||
| 0 | 63 (50.8%) | 64 (53.8%) | |
| 1-2 | 55 (44.4%) | 51 (42.9%) | |
| 3-6 | 6 (4.8%) | 4 (3.3%) | |
|
| 0.933 | ||
| No | 137 (72.8%) | 92 (73.1%) | |
| Yes | 52 (27.2%) | 34 (29.9%) | |
|
| 0.585 | ||
| No | 165 (87.7%) | 113 (89.6%) | |
| Yes | 23 (12.3%) | 13 (10.4%) | |
|
| 0.777 | ||
| Cardia | 31 (12.6%) | 15 (12.6%) | |
| Corpus | 44 (20.5%) | 25 (20.5%) | |
| Antrum | 107 (63.4%) | 84 (65.4%) | |
| Diffuse | 7 (3.5%) | 2 (3.5%) | |
|
| 0.076 | ||
| 1 | 61 (31.5%) | 37 (31.1%) | |
| 2 | 38 (19.1%) | 30 (28.9%) | |
| 3 | 90 (49.4%) | 59 (40%) | |
|
| 0.122 | ||
| 1 | 32 (16.9%) | 24 (19.0%) | |
| 2 | 55 (29.1%) | 35 (27.8%) | |
| 3 | 68 (35.9%) | 43 (34.1%) | |
| 4 | 34 (17.9%) | 24 (19.0%) | |
|
| 0.054 | ||
| Yes | 147 (78.1%) | 86 (68.2%) | |
| No | 41 (21.9%) | 40 (31.3%) | |
|
| 0.260 | ||
| Yes | 170 (90.4%) | 116 (92.0%) | |
| NO | 19 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | |
|
| 0.185 | ||
| Yes | 170 (90.4%) | 116 (92.0%) | |
| NO | 19 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | |
|
| 0.970 | ||
| Yes | 18 (9.6%) | 11 (8.5%) | |
| NO | 171 (90.4%) | 115 (91.5%) |
Average ± SD or number (%) for results. BMI, body mass index; NRS, Nutritional Risk Screening; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1Lasso regression for splenic characteristics in the training group. Characteristics with a logistic regression p-value of <0.05 were used for lasso regression modeling. A lambda (Ln) was selected at −3.833 for the final lasso model.
Clinical data table of radiologic tumor invasion score grouping.
| Spleen characteristics groups | Training cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| High-risk group (79) | Low-risk group (110) | p-value | |
|
| 0.138 | ||
| l<70 | 55 (69.6%) | 65 (59.1%) | |
| ≥70 | 24 (30.4%) | 45 (40.9%) | |
|
| 0.627 | ||
| Female | 17 (21.5%) | 27 (24.5%) | |
| Male | 62 (78.4%) | 83 (75.5%) | |
|
| 0.705 | ||
| 1-2 | 39 (67.9%) | 55 (63.2%) | |
| 3-4 | 32 (67.9%) | 41 (29.9%) | |
| 5-6 | 8 (67.9%) | 14 (6.9%) | |
|
| 0.844 | ||
| 0 | 42 (51.9%) | 58 (51.3%) | |
| 1-2 | 35 (45.7%) | 48 (44.9%) | |
| 3-6 | 2 (2.4%) | 4 (3.8%) | |
|
| 0.261 | ||
| Yes | 25 (32.1%) | 34 (25.6%) | |
| No | 54 (67.9%) | 76 (74.4%) | |
|
| 0.610 | ||
| Yes | 7 (9.9%) | 11 (12.0%) | |
| No | 72 (90.1%) | 99 (88.0%) | |
|
| 0.321 | ||
| Cardia | 9 (12.3%) | 13 (9.0%) | |
| Corpus | 20 (25.9%) | 33 (28.2%) | |
| Antrum | 45 (55.5%) | 57 (56.4%) | |
| Diffuse | 5 (6.3%) | 7 (6.4%) | |
|
| 0.230 | ||
| N0 | 30 (38.3%) | 47 (41.9%) | |
| N+ | 49 (61.7%) | 63 (58.1%) | |
|
| 0.019* | ||
| 1-2 | 25 (31.6%) | 53 (48.2%) | |
| 3 | 22 (27.8%) | 32 (29.1%) | |
| 4 | 32 (40.5%) | 25 (22.7%) | |
|
| 0.030* | ||
| 1 | 23 (29.1%) | 49 (44.5%) | |
| 2 | 18 (22.8%) | 28 (25.5%) | |
| 3 | 38 (48.1%) | 33 (30%) | |
|
| 0.732 | ||
| Yes | 61 (77.2%) | 87 (79.1%) | |
| No | 18 (22.8%) | 23 (20.9%) | |
Average SD or number (%) for results. *Showing statistical significance (P < 0.05). Calculation of variables whose theoretical number was <10 by Fisher accurate probability test. BMI, body mass index; NRS, Nutritional Risk Screening; TNM, Tumor Node Metastasis; SD, standard deviation.
Univariate analysis table of serosal invasion.
| Factors | Training cohort | Univariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| statistics | HR (95%CI) | p-value | |
|
| 6.231 | <0.001*** | |
| High-risk | 79 (41.7%) | ||
| Low- risk | 110 (58.2%) | ||
|
| 1.279 | 0.376 | |
| <70 | 120 (64.1%) | ||
| ≥70 | 69 (35.9%) | ||
|
| 1.021 | 0.952 | |
| Female | 44 (24.4%) | ||
| Male | 145 (75.6%) | ||
|
| 0.863 | 0.863 | |
| 1-3 | 125 (32.4%) | ||
| 4-6 | 64 (67.6%) | ||
|
| 1.382 | 0.303 | |
| Yes | 59 (27.3%) | ||
| No | 130 (72.7%) | ||
|
| 0.865 | 0.221 | |
| Yes | 18 (6.3%) | ||
| No | 171 (6.3%) | ||
|
| 0.883 | 0.443 | |
| Differentiation | 148 (74.6%) | ||
| Non differentiation | 41(7.9%) | ||
|
| 2.132 | 0.043* | |
| ≥2.75 | 60 (28.3%) | ||
| <2.75 | 129(71.7%) | ||
|
| 3.834 | 0.023* | |
| ≥92.8 | 67 (40.0%) | ||
| <92.8 | 122(60.0%) | ||
|
| 3.903 | 0.029* | |
| ≥100 | 147 (75,2%) | ||
| <100 | 42 (24.8%) | ||
*Showing statistical significance (p < 0.05). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; PLR, ratio between platelet and lymphocyte; Nutritional Risk Screening; ASA, American Society of Anaesthesiologists; NLR, ratio between neutrophil and lymphocyte. ***p < 0.001.
Multivariate analysis table of serosal invasion.
| Factors | Training cohort | Multifactor analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics | HR (95%CI) | p-value | |
|
| 3.562 | 0.002** | |
| High-risk | 79 (41.7%) | ||
| Low- risk | 110 (58.2%) | ||
|
| 1.412 | 0.142 | |
| ≥2.75 | 60 (28.3%) | ||
| <2.75 | 129 (71.7%) | ||
|
| 2.439 | 0.031* | |
| ≥92.8 | 67 (40.0%) | ||
| <92.8 | 122 (60.0%) | ||
|
| 2.103 | 0.042* | |
| ≥100 | 147 (75,2%) | ||
| <100 | 42 (24.8%) | ||
*Showing statistical significance (p < 0.05). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval;
PLR, ratio between platelet and lymphocyte; NLR, ratio between neutrophil and lymphocyte. **p < 0.01.
Figure 2Radiomic nomogram based on radiologic tumor invasion score and clinical factors and a calibration curve of the radiomics nomogram in the training cohort. (A) The nomogram consists of three indicators, namely, radiation tumor invasion score, preoperative hemoglobin, and platelet and lymphocyte ratio. By adding the three scores, the nomogram can quickly calculate the probability of serosal invasion. (B) The calibration curve depicts the consistency between the predicted values of serosal invasion and the actual observed values. The y-axis represents the actual value. The x-axis represents the predicted value. The more consistent the dotted and solid lines are, the better the predictive power of the model is. PLR, ratio between platelet and lymphocyte.
Figure 4Calibration curve of the radiomics nomogram, area under the curve of the prediction model, and decision curve analysis for the radiomics nomogram in the testing cohort. (A) The calibration curve depicts the consistency between the predicted values of serosal invasion and the actual observed values. (B) The area under the curve represents the reliability of the model. (C) The blue line represents the benefit of the patient after using the prediction model.
Figure 3Area under the curve of the prediction model and decision curve analysis for the radiomics nomogram in the training cohort. (A) The area under the curve represents the reliability of the model; the larger the value, the more reliable the model. (B) The y-axis measures net income. The gray line indicates that the patient has serous invasion, and the black line indicates that the patient has no serous invasion. The blue line represents the benefit of the patient after using the prediction model.