| Literature DB >> 34737644 |
Ran Zhang1,2, Ranran Zhang3, Ting Luan4,5, Biwei Liu6, Yimei Zhang6, Yaping Xu1, Xiaorong Sun5, Ligang Xing6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical occult lymph node metastasis (cOLNM) means that the lymph node is negatively diagnosed by preoperative computed tomography (CT), but has been proven to be positive by postoperative pathology. The aim of this study was to establish and validate a nomogram based on radiomics features for the preoperative prediction of cOLNM in early-stage solid lung adenocarcinoma patients.Entities:
Keywords: clinical occult lymph node; computed tomography; prediction; radiomics; solid lung adenocarcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34737644 PMCID: PMC8560059 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S330824
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Recruitment procedure and study flowchart.
Characteristics of Patients in the Training and Validation Cohorts
| Characteristics | Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLN (+) | OLN (-) | P | OLN (+) | OLN (-) | P | |
| Age, mean ± SD (y) | 59.94 ± 8.30 | 62.56 ± 7.78 | 0.109 | 60.42 ± 7.94 | 59.71 ± 9.49 | 0.741 |
| Gender | 0.999 | 0.69 | ||||
| Male | 16 | 61 | 6 | 23 | ||
| Female | 18 | 65 | 15 | 40 | ||
| Smoking status | 0.375 | 0.276 | ||||
| Smoker | 7 | 38 | 4 | 22 | ||
| Nonsmoker | 27 | 88 | 17 | 41 | ||
| CT-reported tumor size, mean ± SD (cm) | 3.04 ± 0.93 | 2.25 ± 0.81 | 3.36 ± 0.92 | 2.29 ± 0.82 | ||
| Clinical T stage | ||||||
| cT1 | 16 | 99 | 4 | 53 | ||
| cT2 | 18 | 27 | 17 | 10 | ||
| Histological grade | 0.999 | |||||
| Highly/Moderately differentiated | 31 | 112 | 10 | 61 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 3 | 14 | 11 | 2 | ||
| Tumor location | 0.507 | 0.999 | ||||
| Upper | 18 | 77 | 11 | 31 | ||
| Middle- Lower | 16 | 49 | 10 | 32 | ||
| Tumor type | ||||||
| Central | 18 | 36 | 11 | 13 | ||
| Peripheral | 16 | 90 | 10 | 50 | ||
| Pleural traction | 0.873 | 0.999 | ||||
| Yes | 18 | 71 | 17 | 51 | ||
| No | 16 | 55 | 4 | 12 | ||
| Visceral pleural invasion | 0.092 | 0.115 | ||||
| Yes | 21 | 55 | 17 | 37 | ||
| No | 13 | 71 | 4 | 26 | ||
| CEA level | 0.112 | |||||
| Normal | 16 | 95 | 16 | 58 | ||
| Abnormal | 18 | 31 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Wedge resection | 0.413 | 0.104 | ||||
| Yes | 3 | 20 | 0 | 9 | ||
| No | 31 | 106 | 21 | 54 | ||
| Rad score, median | 8.91 | 5.94 | 6.12 | 4.96 | ||
Note: Significant values are printed in bold.
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; OLN, occult lymph node; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 2Radiomics feature reduction and selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) binary model. (A) Selection by the LASSO model utilized 10-fold cross-validation with the minimum criteria. The binomial deviances were plotted against log (lambda). Dotted vertical lines mark the optimal value applying the minimum criteria with 1 standard error (the 1-SE criteria). The optimal λ value of 0.101 with log(λ) =−2.291 was selected. (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 357 radiomics features. The vertical line was delineated at the optimal value by 10-fold cross-validation, and 3 features were chosen with nonzero coefficients in the plot.
Figure 3ROC curves and calibration curves. (A) ROC curves for training cohort. (B) ROC curve for radiomics signature of validation cohort. (C) Calibration curve of the radiomics model in the training group. (D) Calibration curve of the radiomics model in the validation group. Calibration curves described the calibration of each predictive model as a measure of the agreement between the predicted probabilities of occult lymph node metastasis (OLNM) and the observed result. The y-axis shows the actual OLNM rate, and the x-axis shows the predicted OLNM risks. The diagonal dotted blue line denotes a perfect prediction (ideal model). The red line reveals the actual performance of the nomogram.
The Results of ROC Analysis
| Training Cohort | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | F1 Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor size | 0.730 (0.634–0.827) | 76.5 | 61.9 | 35.1 | 90.7 | 48.1 |
| Rad score | 0.767 (0.680–0.855) | 76.5 | 64.3 | 36.6 | 91.0 | 49.5 |
| Nomogram | 0.782 (0.691–0.874) | 61.8 | 87.3 | 56.8 | 89.4 | 59.2 |
| Validation cohort | ||||||
| Tumor size | 0.807 (0.706–0.885) | 80.9 | 82.5 | 60.7 | 92.9 | 69.4 |
| Rad score | 0.767 (0.662–0.853) | 80.9 | 68.3 | 45.9 | 91.5 | 58.6 |
| Nomogram | 0.813 (0.713–0.890) | 80.9 | 84.1 | 63.0 | 93.0 | 70.9 |
Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Univariable and Multivariable Logistic Regression Analyses for OLN
| Variable and Intercept | Univariable Logistic Regression | Multivariable Logistic Regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Smoking (yes or no) | 0.600 (0.241–1.498) | 0.274 | NA | NA |
| KPS score | 0.886 (0.361–2.179) | 0.793 | NA | NA |
| CT-reported tumor size | 2.743 (1.706–4.411) | 1.921 (1.114–3.311) | ||
| T stage (T1 or T2) | 4.125 (1.860–9.149) | 0.732 (0.171–3.138) | 0.675 | |
| Tumor location (upper or middle-lower) | 0.716 (0.334–1.535) | 0.39 | NA | NA |
| Tumor type (central or peripheral) | 2.812 (1.294–6.114) | 1.603 (0.657–3.910) | 0.3 | |
| Wedge resection (yes or no) | 0.513 (0.143–1.841) | 0.306 | NA | NA |
| Histologic grade (poor or moderate/high) | 1.292 (0.349–4.782) | 0.702 | NA | NA |
| Histologic subtype (acinar or not) | 0.869 (0.385–1.963) | 0.736 | ||
| Pleural traction (yes or no) | 0.871 (0.408–1.863) | 0.723 | NA | NA |
| Visceral pleural invasion (yes or no) | 2.085 (0.960–4.531) | 0.063 | NA | NA |
| CEA level (normal or abnormal) | 3.085 (1.401–6.790) | 1.966 (0.801–4.825) | 0.14 | |
| Rad score (per 0.1 increase) | 1.438 (1.221–1.694) | 1.318 (1.107–1.571) | ||
Note: Significant values are printed in bold.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; CT, computed tomography; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 4Radiomics nomogram. The predictive nomogram was built in the training group. Its variables were CT-reported tumor size and Rad-score.
Figure 5Decision curve analysis for the radiomics nomogram in the validation cohort. The y-axis measures the net benefit, and the x-axis represents the threshold probability. The red line represents the radiomics nomogram. The blue line represents the assumption that all patients have OLNM. The green line represents the assumption that no patients have OLNM. The decision curve in the validation cohort indicates that if the threshold probability of a patient was between 0.22 and 0.83, the nomogram to predict OLNM showed more benefit than the treat-all therapeutic plan or treat-none plan.