| Literature DB >> 35024463 |
Yiling Wang1, Churong Li1, Gang Yin1, Jie Wang1, Jie Li1, Pei Wang1, Jie Bian2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy prognosis; Radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 35024463 PMCID: PMC8728047 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2405-6308
Fig. 1Illustration for the radiomics features extracted in this study.
Fig. 2Workflow of the prediction model construction process.
Baseline Characteristics of NPC patient in the training-validtion and testing cohorts.
| Parameters | Training and Cross-validation | Testing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responder (n = 59) | Non-responder (n = 26) | Responder (n = 57) | Non-responder (n = 23) | |||
| Age (years) | 47.76 ± 12.13 | 45.15 ± 12.36 | 0.46 | 47.28 ± 11.42 | 48.00 ± 8.74 | 0.79 |
| Gender | 0.49 | 0.55 | ||||
| Male | 45 (76.27%) | 18 (69.23%) | 41 (71.93%) | 15 (65.22%) | ||
| Female | 14 (23.72%) | 8 (30.77%) | 16 (28.07%) | 8 (34.78%) | ||
| Tumor stage | 0.21 | 0.73 | ||||
| T1 | 3 (5.08%) | 0 | 1 (1.75%) | 1(4.35%) | ||
| T2 | 8 (13.56%) | 8 (30.77%) | 17 (29.82%) | 7 (30.43%) | ||
| T3 | 20 (33.90%) | 7 (26.92%) | 18 (31.58%) | 9(39.13%) | ||
| T4 | 28 (47.46%) | 11 (42.31%) | 21 (36.84%) | 6 (26.09%) | ||
| Nodal stage | 0.33 | 0.13 | ||||
| N0 (%) | 1(1.69%) | 1(3.85%) | 0 | 0 | ||
| N1 (%) | 2 (3.39%) | 3 (11.54%) | 4 (7.02%) | 4 (17.39%) | ||
| N2(%) | 37 (62.71%) | 12 (46.15%) | 38 (66.67%) | 10 (43.48%) | ||
| N3(%) | 19 (32.20%) | 10 (38.46%) | 15 (26.32%) | 9 (39.13%) | ||
| NAC regimen | 0.89 | 0.45 | ||||
| GP | 19 (32.20%) | 9 (34.62%) | 7 (12.28%) | 2 (8.70%) | ||
| TP | 21 (34.78%) | 10 (38.46%) | 21 (36.84%) | 12 (52.17%) | ||
| FP | 19 (32.20%) | 7 (26.92%) | 29 (50.88%) | 9 (39.13%) | ||
| NAC period | 0.58 | 0.84 | ||||
| 2 | 42 (71.19%) | 20 (76.92%) | 36 (63.16%) | 14 (60.87%) | ||
| 3 | 17 (28.81%) | 6 (23.08%) | 21 (36.84%) | 9 (39.13%) | ||
b Two independent sample t test
χ2 test
According to the 2009 Union for International Cancer Control
Fig. 3Univariate association between the radiomics features and the early response of NAC in terms of the Spearman’s rank correlation. The column side label is stratified into four levels with different colors representing different parameters.
The results of the radiomics feature selection.
| 1 | GLRLM-HGRE | T2 | 2.0 | 3 | Equal | 8 |
| 2 | GLSZM-SZLGE | T1-cs | 2 | 5 | 16 | |
| 3 | First order-Skewness | 2.0 | 5 | |||
| 4 | GLCM-Contrast | 0.5 | 4 | Lloyd | ||
| 5 | GLCM-Variance | 1.5 | 3 | 16 | ||
| 6 | GLCM-SumAverage | 2.0 | 4 | Equal | 8 | |
| 7 | GLRLM-SRE | 1.5 | 2 | Lloyd | 32 | |
| 8 | GLSZM-HGZE | 2 | 4 | Equal | 8 | |
| 9 | GLCM-Dissimilarity | 1.0 | 32 | |||
| 10 | GLRLM-LRE | 1.5 | 2 | Lloyd | ||
| 11 | GLCM-Homogeneity | 0.67 | 4 | 8 | ||
| 12 | GLRLM-GLN | pixel | 64 | |||
| 13 | GLRLM-RLN | 1.5 | ||||
| 14 | GLCM-Correlation | 1.0 | 4 | 8 | ||
| 15 | GLSZM-SZHGE | 0.5 | pixel | 16 | ||
| 16 | GLCM-Entropy | 1.5 | 3 | 16 | ||
| 17 | GLRLM-LGRE | 0.5 | 2 | 32 | ||
| 18 | GLRLM-SRLGE | 1.5 | 5 | Equal | 16 | |
| 19 | GLRLM-SRHGE | 2 | 32 | |||
| 20 | GLSZM-LGZE | 5 | Equal | 16 | ||
| 21 | GLRLM-HGRE | 5 | Equal | 8 | ||
| 22 | GLCM-Energy | 1.5 | 3 | Lloyd | 32 | |
| 23 | GLRLM-GLV | 1 | 64 | |||
| 24 | GLRLM-LRHGE | 4 | ||||
| 25 | GLRLM-RLV | 0.67 | 1 | 32 |
Fig. 4Estimation of the prediction performance with model order 1–10 in the training cohort. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean on a 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 5NAC response probability (response = 1, non-response = 0) as a function of the predicted radiomics score. The black line displays the result of the logit transformation to the radiomics score. The blue circles represent the response group. The red crosses represent the non-response group. (A) Cross-validation cohort. (B) Testing cohort. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)