| Literature DB >> 35092505 |
Jing Ren1, Yuan Li2, Jun-Jun Yang2, Jia Zhao1, Yang Xiang2, Chen Xia3, Ying Cao3, Bo Chen4, Hui Guan5, Ya-Fei Qi1, Wen Tang3, Kuan Chen3, Yong-Lan He6, Zheng-Yu Jin7, Hua-Dan Xue8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The depth of cervical stromal invasion is one of the important prognostic factors affecting decision-making for early stage cervical cancer (CC). This study aimed to develop and validate a T2-weighted imaging (T2WI)-based radiomics model and explore independent risk factors (factors with statistical significance in both univariate and multivariate analyses) of middle or deep stromal invasion in early stage CC.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiomics; Risk factor; Stromal invasion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35092505 PMCID: PMC8800977 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01156-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insights Imaging ISSN: 1869-4101
Fig. 1Flowchart of the study
Characteristics of patients in training and validation cohorts
| Training cohort ( | Validation cohort ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superficial stromal invasion | Middle or deep stromal invasion | Superficial stromal invasion | Middle or deep stromal invasion | ||||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 43.81 ± 9.88 | 44.98 ± 9.50 | 0.441 | 46.00 ± 9.49 | 46.79 ± 10.82 | 0.819 | 0.229 |
| Menstrual status (N. %) | 0.327 | 1.000 | 0.279 | ||||
| Premenopausal | 44 | 92 | 8 | 21 | |||
| Postmenopausal | 13 | 39 | 5 | 12 | |||
| FIGO stage (N. %) | < 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.985 | ||||
| IB1 | 41 | 36 | 10 | 10 | |||
| IB2 | 15 | 81 | 3 | 20 | |||
| IB3 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | |||
| IIA1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 2 | |||
| Biopsy histological type (N. %) | 0.553 | 0.862 | 0.729 | ||||
| SCC | 37 | 92 | 9 | 24 | |||
| AC | 19 | 34 | 4 | 7 | |||
| ASC | 1 | 5 | 0 | 2 | |||
| MTD on MRI, mean ± SD, mm | 17.63 ± 7.03 | 25.82 ± 9.13 | < 0.001 | 14.65 ± 6.16 | 25.06 ± 8.39 | < 0.001 | 0.469 |
P is derived from the univariable association analysis of each clinical variable between superficial stromal invasion patients and middle or deep stromal invasion patients in the training and validation cohort, respectively. P* represents the difference of each clinical variable between the training and validation cohorts
SD, standard deviation; FIGO, Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; MTD, maximal tumor diameter
Fig. 2Radiomics feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression method. a The optimal λ was selected as the lowest binomial in the LASSO model using fivefold cross-validation. b LASSO coefficient profiles of the features show vertical lines that are drawn at the value selected using fivefold cross-validation, and the optimal λ results in 5 nonzero coefficients
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for independent risk factors of middle or deep stromal invasion
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Age | 1.012 | 0.983–1.042 | 0.416 | – | – | – |
| Menopause status | 1.304 | 0.695–2.448 | 0.409 | – | – | – |
| FIGO stage | 5.085 | 2.826–9.149 | < 0.001 | 1.380 | 0.655–2.910 | 0.397 |
| Biopsy histological type | 0.929 | 0.557–1.550 | 0.778 | – | – | – |
| MTD on MRI | 1.156 | 1.103–1.213 | < 0.001 | 1.131 | 1.058–1.210 | < 0.001 |
FIGO, Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics; CI, confidence interval; MTD, maximal tumor diameter
Diagnostic performance of radiomics model, combined model, MTD on MRI, and radiologists in validation cohort
| AUC | SEN | SPE | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiomics Model | 0.879 (0.775–0.983) | 0.879 (0.727–0.952) | 0.846 (0.578–0.973) | 0.935 (0.772–0.989) | 0.733 (0.448–0.911) |
| Combined Model | 0.886 (0.784–0.988) | 0.879 (0.727–0.952) | 0.846 (0.578–0.973) | 0.935 (0.772–0.989) | 0.733 (0.448–0.911) |
| MTD on MRI | 0.844 (0.719–0.969) | 0.697 (0.527–0.826) | 0.769 (0.497–0.918) | 0.885 (0.687–0.970) | 0.500 (0.279–0.721) |
| Senior radiologist | – | 75.7% | 69.2% | 86.2% | 52.9% |
| Junior radiologist | – | 63.6% | 53.8% | 77.8% | 36.8% |
AUC, Area Under the Curve; SEN, sensitivity; SPE, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; MTD, maximal tumor diameter
Fig. 3ROC curves of combined model, radiomics model, and tumor maximum diameter on MRI for predicting middle or deep stroma invasion in the validation cohort. The senior radiologist’s performance is indicated by the black cross and the junior radiologist’s performance is indicated by the red cross
Fig. 4Nomogram for individual prediction of the probability of middle or deep stroma invasion in early stage CC. The nomogram was was a visual representation of the combined model in training cohort, which integrated radiomics signature and independent risk factor. The radiomics signature in the nomogram was the linear sum of the selected 5 radiomics features and their corresponding coefficients. (Rsignature: radiomics signature; MTD: maximal tumor diameter on MRI)
Fig. 5Representative images of middle or deep cervical stroma invasion (a) and superficial cervical stroma invasion (b). The lesions in the frames on sagittal T2WI are cervical tumors. a1 a 35-year-old, 2018 FIGO IB2, SCC patient with MTD on MRI of 28.0 mm. The probability of the middle or deep stroma invasion predicted by the nomogram was 98%. a2 a 49-year-old, 2018 FIGO IB1, SCC patient with MTD on MRI of 14.1 mm. The probability of the middle or deep stroma invasion predicted by the nomogram was 77%. b1 a 34-year-old, 2018 FIGO IB2, SCC patient with MTD on MRI of 20.1 mm. The probability of the middle or deep stroma invasion predicted by the nomogram was 33%. b2 a 52-year-old, 2018 FIGO IB1, AC patient with MTD on MRI of 12.2 mm. The probability of the middle or deep stroma invasion predicted by the nomogram was 13%. (MTD: maximal tumor diameter; FIGO: Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; AC: adenocarcinoma)