| Literature DB >> 35529273 |
Yong Wang1, Guoyan Feng2,3, Jianru Wang1,3, Peng An1,4, Peng Duan3, Yan Hu5, Yingjian Ye2, Yang Li1, Ping Qin2, Ping Song1.
Abstract
Objective: This study was aimed at developing a model for predicting postoperative biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) using clinical data-CEUS-MRI radiomics and at verifying its clinical effectiveness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35529273 PMCID: PMC9071874 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8090529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1From the content of references retrieval from 1980 to 2021, BCR has always been a research hotspot, with more research on molecular mechanism and BCR management and but less on prediction of BCR by multimodal radiomics.
Figure 2The technical flowchart of this study. Novelty of the work is a prediction model/nomograph tools established using the multimodal radiomics (MRI-ultrasound) combined with clinical data, which has not been reported before.
Figure 3The simplified inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient enrollment in the present study.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of texture omics feature extraction based on R Studio software (lasso regression method of deep learning). A total of 14 groups of available texture data are extracted.
Regression analysis results of establishing MRI model based on MRI radiomics to predict the BCR, ∗P < 0.05.
| MRI radiomics model | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hazard ratio |
| Hazard ratio | |
| Median...86 | 0.247 | 0.714 (0.404-1.262) | ||
| DifferenceVariance...105 | 0.754 | 0.962 (0.758-1.223) | ||
| SmallDependenceEmphasis...133 | 0.637 | 1.067 (0.815-1.396) | ||
| DifferenceAverage...227 | 0.123 | 1.274 (0.937-1.731) | ||
| SumEntropy...240 | 0.061 | 1.299(0.989-1.708) | ||
| SmallDependenceHighGrayLevelEmphasis...321 | 0.293 | 0.632 (0.268-1.488) | ||
| Maximum...329 | 0.645 | 1.081 (0.776-1.506) | ||
| Variance...338 | 0.495 | 1.231 (0.678-2.237) | ||
| Idm...350 | 0.797 | 1.017 (0.896-1.154) | ||
| InverseVariance...354 | 0.695 | 1.031 (0.887-1.201) | ||
| SmallAreaHighGrayLevelEmphasis...665 | 0.045∗ | 1.322 (1.006-1.737) | .021∗ | 1.418 (1.054-1.906) |
| RunVariance...758 | 0.021∗ | 0.484 (0.262-0.897) | .017∗ | 0.443 (0.227-0.865) |
| Contrast...866 | 0.047∗ | 0.772 (0.598-0.996) | .034∗ | 0.748 (0.571-0.979) |
| Strength...872 | 0.366 | 1.068 (0.926-1.231) | ||
Regression analysis results of establishing general data model based on clinical features to predict the BCR, ∗P < 0.05.
| General data model | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hazard ratio |
| Hazard ratio | |
| Age (year) | 0.549 | 1.027 (0.941-1.123) | ||
| Prostate volume (cm3) | 0.772 | 0.994 (0.956-1.034) | ||
| Tumor diameter (mm) | 0.038∗ | 1.431 (1.021-2.003) | 0.081 | 1.441 (0.956-2.174) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.815 | 0.985 (0.869-1.117) | ||
| Clinical T stage | 0.027∗ | 1.839 (1.071-3.159) | 0.219 | 1.518 (0.781-2.953) |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.017∗ | 1.469 (1.072-2.013) | 0.027∗ | 1.526 (1.049-2.221) |
| Distant metastasis | 0.041∗ | 1.404 (1.015-1.942) | 0.621 | 1.107 (0.739-1.659) |
| Gleason score | 0.049∗ | 2.331 (1.004-5.409) | 0.050 | 2.788 (0.998-7.788) |
| Preoperative PSA ( | 0.031∗ | 2.248 (1.075-4.701) | 0.035∗ | 2.571 (1.070-6.178) |
| Treatment mode | 0.022∗ | 2.667 (1.152-6.172) | 0.022∗ | 3.263 (1.189-8.955) |
Regression analysis results of establishing CEUS model based on CEUS features to predict the BCR, ∗P < 0.05.
| CEUS model | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hazard ratio |
| Hazard ratio | |
| PI (dB) | 0.025∗ | 0.794 (0.648-0.971) | 0.083 | 0.827 (0.667-1.025) |
|
| 0.395 | 1.441 (0.622-3.336) | ||
|
| 0.533 | 1.308 (0.562-3.042) | ||
| TTP | 0.044∗ | 1.010 (1.000-1.019) | 0.074 | 1.009 (0.999-1.020) |
| AT | 0.028∗ | 1.165 (1.017-1.334) | 0.079 | 1.144 (0.984-1.329) |
| AUC | 0.753 | 0.877 (0.386-1.989) | ||
| Enhanced level | 0.872 | 0.934 (0.408-2.137) | ||
| Enhanced uniformity | 0.781 | 0.891 (0.394-2.013) | ||
| Elastography grade | 0.013∗ | 2.515 (1.218-5.191) | 0.019∗ | 2.581 (1.771-5.692) |
Notes: PI: the peak intensity; Σ: ascending branch slope; γ: descending branch slope; TTP: time to peak; AT: arrival time.
Regression analysis results of establishing combinatorial model based on CEUS-MRI-clinical features to predict the BCR, ∗P < 0.05.
| Combinatorial model |
| S.E. | Wals | Sig. | Exp ( | Exp ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||||
| SmallAreaHighGrayLevelEmphasis | .706 | .248 | 8.144 | .004∗ | 2.027 | 1.248 | 3.293 |
| RunVariance | .913 | .472 | 3.746 | .037∗ | .401 | .159 | 1.012 |
| Contrast | .360 | .208 | 3.002 | .083 | .698 | .464 | 1.048 |
| Tumor diameter (mm) | .606 | .276 | 4.818 | .068 | 1.833 | 1.067 | 3.148 |
| Clinical T stage | .086 | .420 | .042 | .838 | 1.090 | .479 | 2.482 |
| Lymph node metastasis | .444 | .262 | 2.873 | .090 | 1.558 | .933 | 2.603 |
| Distant metastasis | .573 | .320 | 3.201 | .074 | 1.773 | .947 | 3.321 |
| Gleason score | 1.245 | .657 | 3.596 | .048∗ | 3.474 | .959 | 12.583 |
| Preoperative PSA ( | 1.425 | .579 | 6.044 | .014∗ | 4.156 | 1.335 | 12.941 |
| Treatment mode | 1.580 | .707 | 4.992 | .025∗ | 4.854 | 1.214 | 19.410 |
| PI (dB) | .177 | .156 | 1.279 | .258 | .838 | .617 | 1.138 |
| TTP | .008 | .007 | 1.120 | .290 | 1.008 | .994 | 1.022 |
| AT | .175 | .113 | 2.391 | .122 | 1.191 | .954 | 1.487 |
| Elastography grade | 1.324 | .579 | 5.234 | .022∗ | 3.757 | 1.209 | 11.675 |
Figure 5DeLong nonparametric method was used to estimate the area under the curve of ROC between different prediction models of training set (a) and test set (b) and compare its effectiveness in predicting the BCR. The area under the curve of the combined model was the largest.
Figure 6In the training set (a) and the test set (b), the prediction performance of the general data model, CEUS model, MRI radiomics model, and combinatorial model is compared using the net benefit of decision curve; it is confirmed that the combined model had the highest predictive performance.
Figure 7The nomogram prediction tool based on the risk factors of the combined model was used clinically (x5 Gleason score; X6 preoperative PSA concentration; X7 treatment mode; X11 elastography grade; x12 SmallAreaHighGrayLevelEmphasis; and x13 RunVariance).