| Literature DB >> 35582676 |
Feng Che1, Qing Xu2, Qian Li1, Zi-Xing Huang1, Cai-Wei Yang1, Li Ye Wang3, Yi Wei1, Yu-Jun Shi2, Bin Song4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phosphorylation status of β-arrestin1 influences its function as a signal strongly related to sorafenib resistance. This retrospective study aimed to develop and validate radiomics-based models for predicting β-arrestin1 phosphorylation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using whole-lesion radiomics and visual imaging features on preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images. AIM: To develop and validate radiomics-based models for predicting β-arrestin1 phosphorylation in HCC using radiomics with contrast-enhanced CT.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Overall survival; Radiomics; Sorafenib resistance; β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35582676 PMCID: PMC9048469 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i14.1479
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Patient recruitment process.
Baseline characteristics of the patients in the training and validation cohorts
|
|
|
|
|
| Age, mean ± SD, yr | 51.00 ± 13.019 | 52.73 ± 11.776 | 0.269 |
| Gender | 0.751 | ||
| Male | 61 (88.4) | 26 (86.7) | |
| ALT (IU/L) | 0.375 | ||
| < 40 | 44 (63.8) | 16 (53.5) | |
| AST (IU/L) | 0.829 | ||
| < 35 | 32 (46.4) | 13 (43.4) | |
| ALB (g/L) | 0.612 | ||
| < 40 | 15 (21.7) | 8 (26.7) | |
| GGT (μ/L) | 0.817 | ||
| < 45 | 24 (34.8) | 9 (30.0) | |
| TBIL (μmol/L) | 0.828 | ||
| < 17.1 | 39 (56.5) | 16 (53.3) | |
| PLT (× 109/L) | 0.791 | ||
| < 100 | 14 (20.3) | 7 (23.3) | |
| PT(s) | 0.596 | ||
| < 9.6 or > 12.8 | 16 (23.2) | 5 (16.7) | |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.279 | ||
| < 400 | 34 (49.3) | 11 (36.7) | |
| CEA (ng/mL) | 0.798 | ||
| < 3.4 | 53 (76.8) | 24 (80.0) | |
| HBsAg | 0.270 | ||
| Positive | 61 (88.4) | 29 (96.7) | |
| MVI | 0.827 | ||
| Absent | 36 (52.2) | 17 (56.7) | |
| Present | 33 (47.8) | 13 (43.3) | |
| Differentiation | 0.661 | ||
| Highly | 37 (53.6) | 18 (60.0) | |
| Middle-Low | 32 (46.4) | 12 (40.0) | |
| BCLC | 0.254 | ||
| 0-A | 9 (13.0) | 8 (26.7) | |
| B | 28 (40.6) | 10 (33.3) | |
| C | 32 (46.4) | 12 (40.0) | |
| Child-Pugh Score | 0.770 | ||
| < 3 | 57 (82.6) | 26 (86.7) | |
| Morphologic CT features | |||
| Tumour size | 0.499 | ||
| < 5 cm | 24 (34.8) | 13 (43.3) | |
| Multifocality | 0.351 | ||
| 1 | 49 (71.0) | 18 (60.0) | |
| ≥ 2 | 20 (29.0) | 12 (40.0) | |
| Tumour margin | 0.661 | ||
| Smooth | 32 (46.4) | 12 (40.0) | |
| Non-smooth | 37 (53.6) | 18 (60.0) | |
| Pseudo–capsule | 0.824 | ||
| Well-defined | 27 (39.1) | 13 (43.3) | |
| Ill-defined | 42 (60.9) | 17 (56.7) | |
| AP hyperenhancement | 0.448 | ||
| No | 5 (7.2) | 4 (13.3) | |
| Yes | 64 (92.8) | 26 (86.7) | |
| PVP hypoenhancement | 0.430 | ||
| No | 4 (5.8) | 3 (10.0) | |
| Yes | 65 (94.2) | 27 (90.0) | |
| Radiologic evidence of necrosis | 0.822 | ||
| Absent | 25 (36.2) | 12 (40.0) | |
| Present | 44 (63.8) | 18 (60.0) | |
| Radiologic evidence of cirrhosis | 0.654 | ||
| Absent | 45 (65.2) | 18 (60.0) | |
| Present | 24 (34.8) | 12 (40.0) | |
| Portal vein tumor thrombosis invasion | 0.186 | ||
| Absent | 43 (62.3) | 14 (46.7) | |
| Present | 26 (37.7) | 16 (53.3) | |
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, data are the number of patients, and data in parentheses are percentages. AFP: Alpha-fetoprotein; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; HBsAg: Hepatitis B surface antigen; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; TBIL: Total bilirubin; ALB: Albumin; PT: Prothrombin time; PLT: Platelet count; GGT: γ-glutamyl transpeptidase; MVI: Microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; SD: Standard deviation; AP: Arterial phase; PVP: Portal venous phase.
Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of the p-β-arrestin1-positive and p-β-arrestin1-negative groups in the training cohort
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ALT | 0.237 (0.043-1.292) | 0.096 | 0.159 (0.038-0.673) | 0.012 |
| AST | 0.497 (0.100-2.471) | 0.393 | - | - |
| Tumor size | 0.245 (0.059-1.019) | 0.053 | 0.243 (0.059-1.003) | 0.050 |
| Tumor margin | 0.180 (0.046-0.706) | 0.014 | 0.170 (0.044-0.664) | 0.011 |
| Radiomics | 3.473 (1.574-7.663) | 0.002 | 3.412 (1.562-7.453) | 0.002 |
P value < 0.1.
ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio.
Figure 2Performance of the three models. A: The developed clinico-radiological (CR) nomogram; B: The developed clinico-radiological-radiomics (CRR) nomogram. Predictor points are found on the uppermost point scale that corresponds to each variable. On the bottom scale, the points for all variables are added and translated into a β-arrestin1 phosphorylation positivity probability. C: Comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the radiomics model, CR model and CRR model in the training cohort; D: Comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the radiomics model, CR model and CRR model in the validation cohort. E: Calibration curves of the three models in the training cohort; F: Calibration curves of the three models in the validation cohort. The actual high expression of p-β-arrestin1 is represented on the y-axis, and the predicted probability is represented on the x-axis. The closer fit of the solid line to the ideal black dotted line indicates a better calibration.
Figure 3Representative images of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation (magnification, × 100). A: CT images of a 45-year-old man with a 6.3-cm hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the right liver lobe in the plain phase; B: The tumor shows heterogeneous hyperenhancement in the arterial phase; C: The tumor shows washout at the portal venous phase with intratumor necrosis, an ill-defined capsule and a non-smooth tumor margin. D: Immunohistochemical staining shows a β-arrestin1 phosphorylation-negative status at 100× magnification.
Diagnostic performance of the three models for predicting β-arrestin1 phosphorylation-positive hepatocellular carcinoma
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RS | 0.754 (0.640-0.868) | 53.8 | 86.7 | 0.007 | 0.704 (0.454-0.953) | 47.6 | 77.8 | 0.791 |
| CR | 0.794 (0.686-0.901) | 87.2 | 66.7 | 0.631 | 0.646 (0.411-0.880) | 81.0 | 33.3 | 0.713 |
| CRR | 0.898 (0.820-0.977) | 87.2 | 86.7 | 0.011 | 0.735 (0.505-0.966) | 71.4 | 66.7 | 0.147 |
AUCs of the radiomics score and clinico-radiological-radiomics model were compared.
AUCs of the radiomics score and clinico-radiological model were compared.
AUCs of the clinico-radiological model and clinico-radiological-radiomics model were compared.
RS: Radiomics score; CR: Clinico-radiological; CRR: Clinico-radiological-radiomics; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; AUC: Area under the curve; CI: Confidence interval.
Figure 4Decision curve analysis for each model. A: Decision curve analysis in the training cohort; B: Decision curve analysis in the validation cohort. The y-axis measures the net benefit, and the x-axis is the threshold probability. The gray line represents the hypothesis that all patients are β-arrestin1 phosphorylation-positive. The black line represents the hypothesis that all patients are β-arrestin1 phosphorylation-negative. Among the three models, the clinico-radiological-radiomics (CRR) model provided the highest net benefit compared with the radiomics and clinico-radiological (CR) models.
Figure 5Overall survival (OS) curve analysis. A: The OS curve estimates by clinic-radiological-radiomics model in patients with β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation positive and β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation negative in the training cohort; B: The OS curve estimates by clinic-radiological-radiomics model in patients with β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation positive and β-Arrestin1 phosphorylation negative in the validation cohort.