| Literature DB >> 35646105 |
Cheng-Hang Li1,2,3, Du Cai1,2, Min-Er Zhong1,2, Min-Yi Lv1,2, Ze-Ping Huang1,2, Qiqi Zhu4, Chuling Hu1,2, Haoning Qi1,2, Xiaojian Wu1,2, Feng Gao1,2.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative and postoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is crucial for subsequent treatment guidance. Our study aims to provide a timely and rapid assessment of the prognosis of CRC patients with deep learning according to non-invasive preoperative computed tomography (CT) and explore the underlying biological explanations.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; deep learning; nomogram; pathway analysis; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35646105 PMCID: PMC9133721 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.880093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.772
FIGURE 1Workflow of MSCNN. (A) Multi-Size based data enhancement of CT images before fed into MSCNN. (B) Data preprocessing of CT images with ROIs. (C) Network structure of MSCNN Multi-Size which includes a CNN to combine Multi-Size CT data, a ResNet34 network to extract image features of tumors from CT images and a last classification network.
Baseline characteristic of patients in the development and validation cohort.
| level | Development cohort( | Validation cohort ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Risk | High Risk | P | Low Risk | High Risk | P | ||
| n | 268 | 158 | 200 | 182 | |||
| Age (mean (SD)) | 58.732 (12.676) | 59.816 (15.649) | 0.4878 | 56.799 (13.099) | 57.134 (13.191) | 0.833 | |
| Sex (%) | F | 116 (43.28) | 57 (36.08) | 0.1735 | 92 (46.00) | 68 (37.36) | 0.1085 |
| M | 152 (56.72) | 101 (63.92) | 108 (54.00) | 114 (62.64) | |||
| TNM stage (%) | I | 28 (10.45) | 7 (4.43) | <0.0001 | 38 (19.19) | 35 (19.34) | 0.0026 |
| II | 126 (47.01) | 29 (18.35) | 69 (34.85) | 42 (23.20) | |||
| III | 99 (36.94) | 53 (33.54) | 63 (31.82) | 52 (28.73) | |||
| IV | 15 (5.60) | 69 (43.67) | 28 (14.14) | 52 (28.73) | |||
| T stage (%) | T1 | 14 (5.22) | 5 (3.18) | 0.0001 | 9 (4.55) | 8 (4.42) | 0.6512 |
| T2 | 23 (8.58) | 4 (2.55) | 35 (17.68) | 29 (16.02) | |||
| T3 | 208 (77.61) | 112 (71.34) | 133 (67.17) | 117 (64.64) | |||
| T4 | 23 (8.58) | 36 (22.93) | 21 (10.61) | 27 (14.92) | |||
| N stage (%) | N0 | 157 (58.80) | 51 (32.90) | <0.0001 | 118 (59.00) | 84 (46.15) | 0.0175 |
| N1 | 84 (31.46) | 65 (41.94) | 58 (29.00) | 60 (32.97) | |||
| N2 | 26 (9.74) | 39 (25.16) | 24 (12.00) | 38 (20.88) | |||
| M stage (%) | M0 | 253 (94.40) | 89 (56.33) | <0.0001 | 172 (88.21) | 130 (78.31) | 0.0168 |
| M1 | 15 (5.60) | 69 (43.67) | 23 (11.79) | 36 (21.69) | |||
| Differentiation grade (%) | Low | 57 (30.81) | 29 (26.36) | 0.0256 | 45 (36.00) | 29 (25.44) | 0.181 |
| Moderate | 117 (63.24) | 64 (58.18) | 76 (60.80) | 79 (69.30) | |||
| High | 11 (5.95) | 17 (15.45) | 4 (3.20) | 6 (5.26) | |||
| Chemotherapy Adjuvant (%) | No | 68 (32.69) | 32 (32.65) | 1 | 108 (56.84) | 102 (61.82) | 0.3992 |
| Yes | 140 (67.31) | 66 (67.35) | 82 (43.16) | 63 (38.18) | |||
FIGURE 2Prognostic performance of MSCNN. The distribution of CT signature of MSCNN and its corresponding recurrence status in the development cohort (A) and validation cohort (C). Kaplan-Meier curves showed a significant survival difference between the high and low risk groups in the development cohort (B) and validation cohort (D). Prognostic analysis of CRC patients in stage II and III subgroups (E–H). Univariable and multivariable analysis of clinical factors in the development cohort (I) and validation cohort (J).
FIGURE 3The developed nomogram incorporated CT signature with T & N stage (A). Coordinates length for each prognostic factor was determined by the coefficients of the cox regression model. For each patient, the total score was calculated with all variable scores. The probability of DFS was derived from the mapping relationship between the evaluation results and total score on specified patient survival time. (B,C) Calibration curves of nomogram for 5 years DFS in the development and validation cohort. (D,E) Decision curve analysis for nomogram established in the development and validation cohort.
FIGURE 4Dimension reduction for visualization and correlation analysis of deep CT features. Principle component analysis (PCA) on the 512 features of the ResNet34 network (A,C) and 64 features (CT feature) of hidden notes of the FC network (B,D). Correlation heatmap between 64 deep CT features and prognostic difference group (E).
FIGURE 5Global gene set pathway analysis. (A) Gene Ontology pathway enrichment analysis between CT signatures and RNA-Seq expression. (B) GSEA showed several Immune related pathways were downregulated in high CT signature patients. (C,D) Correlation between 64 deep CT features and their enrichment hallmark pathways.