| Literature DB >> 35223526 |
Guozheng Zhang1, Hong Yang2, Xisong Zhu1, Jun Luo3, Jiaping Zheng3, Yining Xu4, Yifeng Zheng4, Yuguo Wei5, Zubing Mei6,7, Guoliang Shao3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thermal ablation is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of pulmonary malignancy, but the intraoperative measure of complete ablation of the tumor is mainly based on the subjective judgment of clinicians without quantitative criteria. This study aimed to develop and validate an intraoperative computed tomography (CT)-based radiomic nomogram to predict complete ablation of pulmonary malignancy.Entities:
Keywords: ablation; nomogram; prediction model; pulmonary malignancy; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35223526 PMCID: PMC8866938 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.841678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohorts.
| Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete ablation (n = 47) | Incomplete ablation (n = 27) |
| Complete ablation (n = 19) | Incomplete ablation (n = 11) |
| |||
| Age, years (mean ± SD) | 61.1 (10.9) | 57.6 (9.2) | 0.161 | 61.6 (9.7) | 63.1 (9.3) | 0.677 | ||
| Gender (%) | ||||||||
| Male | 34 (72.3) | 24 (88.9) | 8 (42.1) | 8 (72.7) | ||||
| Female | 13 (27.7) | 3 (11.1) | 0.172 | 11 (57.9) | 3 (27.3) | 0.142 | ||
| Treatment options | ||||||||
| Radio-frequency ablation | 39 (83.0) | 23 (85.2) | 18 (94.7) | 10 (90.9) | ||||
| Microwave ablation | 8 (17.0) | 4 (14.8) | 1.00 | 1 (5.3) | 1 (9.1) | 1.00 | ||
| Nodule Shape | ||||||||
| Class round | 39 (83.0) | 23 (85.2) | 16 (84.2) | 6 (54.5) | ||||
| Irregularly shaped | 8 (17.0) | 4 (14.8) | 1.00 | 3 (15.8) | 5 (45.5) | 0.180 | ||
| LD(mean ± SD) | 15.9 ± 5.6 | 20.2 ± 7.5 |
| 16.0 ± 4.9 | 29.9 ± 12.6 |
| ||
| TD(mean ± SD) | 12.6 ± 4.9 | 16.8 ± 6.0 |
| 13.0 ± 4.4 | 20.6 ± 8.6 |
| ||
| LD/TD | 1.3 (0.3) | 1.2 (0.2) | 0.114 | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.5 (0.4) |
| ||
| Bronchial diameter | ||||||||
| 1mm | 7 (14.9) | 4 (14.8) | 1.00 | 5 (26.3) | 1 (9.1) | 0.507 | ||
| 2mm | 23 (48.9) | 3 (11.1) |
| 7 (36.8) | 2 (18.2) | 0.508 | ||
| 3mm | 11 (23.4) | 9 (33.3) | 0.513 | 6 (31.6) | 3 (27.3) | 1.00 | ||
| 4mm | 4 (8.5) | 4 (14.8) | 0.651 | 1 (5.3) | 2 (18.2) | 0.613 | ||
| 5mm | 2 (4.3) | 5 (18.5) | 0.108 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (18.2) | 0.244 | ||
| 6mm | 0 (0.0) | 2 (7.4) | 0.251 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (9.1) | 0.778 | ||
| Blood vessel diameter | ||||||||
| 1mm | 20 (42.6) | 9 (33.3) | 0.593 | 9 (47.4) | 1 (9.1) | 0.082 | ||
| 2mm | 17 (36.2) | 9 (33.3) | 1.00 | 7 (36.8) | 4 (36.4) | 1.000 | ||
| 3mm | 8 (17.0) | 5 (18.5) | 1.00 | 3 (15.8) | 4 (36.4) | 0.403 | ||
| 4mm | 2 (4.3) | 4 (14.8) | 0.246 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (18.2) | 0.244 | ||
| Tumor location | ||||||||
| The right lung | superior lobe | 11 (23.4) | 9 (33.3) | 0.513 | 4 (21.1) | 2 (18.2) | 1.000 | |
| middle lobe | 6 (12.8) | 1 (3.7) | 0.384 | 2 (10.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.723 | ||
| inferior lobe | 9 (19.1) | 6 (22.2) | 0.987 | 5 (26.3) | 3 (27.3) | 1.000 | ||
| The left lung | superior lobe | 6 (12.8) | 6 (22.2) | 0.462 | 3 (15.8) | 3 (27.3) | 0.776 | |
| inferior lobe | 15 (31.9) | 5 (18.5) | 0.328 | 5 (26.3) | 3 (27.3) | 1.000 | ||
| Distance from nodule to pleura(mean ± SD) | 14.1 (10.6) | 12.5 (10.3) | 0.532 | 11.1 (8.9) | 10.5 (8.0) | 0.846 | ||
D, nodule shortest diameter; LD, nodule longest diameter; BL2, the largest vessel diameter within 1cm around the nodules was 2 mm; LD/TD, ratio of long diameter to short diameter; Bronchial diameter, the largest vascular diameter within 1cm around the nodule; Blood vessel diameter, the largest diameter bronchus within 1cm around the nodule.
In Bold: *statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Figure 1The framework for the radiomic workflow. (A) CT acquisition (B) Ablation lesion segmention (C) Feature extraction (D) Heatmap of the correlation of the radiomic features.
Figure 2Textural feature selection using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) binary logistic regression. (A) Tuning parameters (λ) for the LASSO model were selected by 10-fold cross-validation using the minimum criteria. Partial likelihood deviance was plotted against log (λ). The dotted vertical lines correspond to the optimal values according to the minimum criteria and 1-SE criterion. The 10 features with the smallest binomial deviance were selected. (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of texture features. Vertical lines correspond to the values selected by 10-fold cross-validation of the log (λ) sequence; the 10 non-zero coefficients are indicated.
Figure 3Box plot showing the rad-score distribution of incomplete ablation and complete ablation on training and validation cohorts. p-value from Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test (A, B). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (training and validation cohorts) (C, D). The prediction performance of the ROC curves for radiomics signature for training and validation cohorts.
Clinically significant factors and independent predictors.
| Characteristic | Univariate Logistic Regression | Multivariate Logistic Regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p | OR (95% CI) | p | |
| LD | 0.90 (0.83;0.98) | 0.011 | – | – |
| TD | 0.86( 0.78;0.95) | 0.004 | 0.90 (0.81;1.00) | 0.0479 |
| BL2 | 0.77 (2.00;28.97), | 0.003 | 5.21 (1.30;20.85) | 0.0195 |
OR, odd ratio; TD Nodule shortest diameter, LD Nodule longest diameter, BL2 The largest vessel diameter within 1cm around the nodules was 2 mm.
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the clinics, radiomics and combinations of computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics signatures used to discriminate between complete and incomplete ablation of pulmonary malignancies in the training and validation cohorts (A, B). Radiomics nomogram (C) used to discriminate complete and incomplete ablation of pulmonary malignancies. The nomogram was based on the training cohort; the rad-scores are shown. Initially, vertical lines were drawn at the rad-score values to determine the values of the points. The final point value was the sum of those of the two points. Finally, a vertical line was drawn at the total point value to determine the probability of complete pulmonary malignancy ablation.
Predictive performance of three prediction models for the training and validation sets.
| Training cohort | AUC | 95%CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical prediction model | 0.77* | 0.66-0.88 | 0.681 | 0.815 | 0.730 | 0.865 | 0.595 |
| Radiomics signature | 0.82* | 0.72-0.91 | 0.596 | 0.889 | 0.703 | 0.903 | 0.558 |
| Clinical–radiomics nomogram | 0.88 | 0.80-0.96 | 0.811 | 0.889 | 0.766 | 0.923 | 0.686 |
| Validation cohort | AUC | 95%CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV |
| Clinical prediction model | 0.76 | 0.55-0.96 | 0.579 | 1.00 | 0.733 | 1.00 | 0.579 |
| Radiomics signature | 0.84 | 0.70-0.99 | 0.369 | 0.819 | 0.5339 | 0.778 | 0.429 |
| Clinical–radiomics nomogram | 0.87 | 0.71-1.00 | 0.941 | 0.769 | 0.867 | 0.842 | 0.909 |
CI, confidence interval; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
*P < 0.05 indicates statistically significant differences between AUCs of clinical prediction model (or radiomics model) and clinical–radiomics model with DeLong’s test.
Figure 5Calibration curves of the nomograms of the training (A) and validation (B) cohorts. The diagonal dotted lines represent the ideal predictions; the solid lines represent nomogram performance. A closer fit to the diagonal line indicates more accurate prediction.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis (DCA) results for the three discrimination models. The Y-axis represents the net benefit, calculated by summing the benefits (true-positives) and subtracting the weighted harm (i.e., deleting false-positives). The optimal method for feature selection is that with the highest net benefit.