| Literature DB >> 35669419 |
Xiaomiao Zhang1, Qi Zhang1, Lizhi Xie2, Jusheng An3, Sicong Wang2, Xiaoduo Yu1, Xinming Zhao1.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the value of whole-tumor texture analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map in predicting the early recurrence of patients with locally advanced cervical squamous cell cancer (LACSC) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and establish a combined prediction model including clinical variables and first-order texture features.Entities:
Keywords: FIGO stage; apparent diffusion coefficient; cervical squamous cell cancer; concurrent chemoradiotherapy; recurrence
Year: 2022 PMID: 35669419 PMCID: PMC9165468 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.852308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The flowchart of the study cohort.
MR imaging parameters.
| Sequence | Imaging Plane | TR(ms)/TE(ms) | SliceThickness(mm) | Gap(mm) | Field of View(mm) | Acquisition matrix (phase * frequency) | Number of Excites | b-values (sec/mm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| FSE T1WI | Axial | 520/7.6 | 5 | 1 | 400 | 320*224 | 2 | – |
| FS FSE pelvic T2WI | Axial | 5400/106.5 | 5 | 1 | 400 | 320*256 | 2 | – |
| FS FSE retro T2WI | Axial | 4900/100.2 | 5 | 1 | 400 | 320*256 | 2 | – |
| FSE T2WI | Sagittal | 4900/157 | 4 | 0.4 | 240 | 320*256 | 1 | – |
| FSE T2WI | Axial oblique | 5200/134.6 | 4 | 1 | 220 | 320*256 | 1 | – |
| Diffusion-weighted | Axial | 4700/64.4 | 5 | 1 | 400 | 128*128 | 2 | 0, 800 |
| DCE | Sagittal | 3.8/1.8 | 3 | 0 | 300 | 320*192 | 0.7 | – |
|
| ||||||||
| LAVA-Flex T1WI | Axial | 4.2/1.9 | 3 | 0 | 380 | 320*224 | 0.7 | |
| FS FSE pelvic T2WI | Axial | 4734/90.3 | 5 | 1 | 380 | 320*256 | 2 | |
| FS FSE retro T2WI | Axial | 4734/87.9 | 5 | 1 | 380 | 320*256 | 2 | |
| FSE T2WI | Sagittal | 5907/126.4 | 4 | 0.4 | 240 | 320*256 | 1 | |
| FSE T2WI | Axial oblique | 6241/121.6 | 4 | 0.4 | 200 | 320*256 | 1 | |
| Diffusion-weighted | Axial | 4000/56 | 5 | 1 | 380 | 128*128 | 6 | 0, 800 |
| DCE | Sagittal | 3.8/1.8 | 3 | 0 | 340 | 320*192 | 0.7 | |
Retro T2WI sequence was performed from the renal hilum level to the first floor of the pelvic axial T2WI sequence to evaluate the retroperitoneal lymph node status.
FSE, fast spin echo; FS, fat suppression; DCE, dynamic contrast enhanced; TR, repetition time; TE, echo time; T1WI, T1-weighted imaging; T2WI, T2-weighted imaging; LAVA, liver acquisition with volume acceleration.
Comparison of clinical variables between training and testing cohorts.
| Parameters | Training (n=153) | Testing (n=66) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 54 (47, 59) | 53 (46, 58) | 0.552 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.49 ± 3.34 | 24.48 ± 3.55 | 0.987 |
| SCC-Ag (ng/mL) | 5.30 (2.10, 15.35) | 5.50 (2.08, 11.88) | 0.817 |
| Tumor grade (%) | 0.665 | ||
| Low-grade (well-/moderately differentiated) | 102 (66.7%) | 42 (63.6%) | |
| High-grade (poorly differentiated) | 51 (33.3%) | 24 (36.4%) | |
| 2018 FIGO stage (%) | 0.152 | ||
| II | 76 (49.7%) | 27 (40.9%) | |
| III | 69 (45.1%) | 38 (57.6%) | |
| IVA | 8 (5.2%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
| T stage (%) | 0.335 | ||
| T2 | 116 (75.8%) | 49 (74.2%) | |
| T3 | 29 (19.0%) | 16 (24.2%) | |
| T4 | 8 (5.2%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
| Tumor maximum-diameter | 4.61 ± 1.20 | 4.54 ± 1.14 | 0.685 |
| LNM (%) | 0.534 | ||
| Negative | 85 (55.6%) | 35 (53.0%) | |
| Pelvic LNM | 48 (31.4%) | 25 (37.9%) | |
| Para-aortic LNM | 20 (13.1%) | 6 (9.1%) |
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range according to their distribution; categorical variables are presented as n (%).
BMI, Body mass index; SCC-Ag, Serum levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen; FIGO, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; LNM, Lymph node metastasis.
Comparison of clinical variables between recurrence and non-recurrence groups in the training cohort.
| Parameters | Recurrence (n=43) | Non-recurrence (n=110) | p-value | Multivariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | p-value | ||||
| Age (years) | 53 (46, 57) | 54 (48, 60) | 0.141 | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.09 ± 2.76 | 24.65 ± 3.54 | 0.349 | ||
| SCC-Ag (ng/mL) | 8.70 (4.70, 21.90) | 4.00 (1.80, 10.78) | 0.010 | – | 0.775 |
| Tumor grade (%) | 0.162 | ||||
| Low-grade (well-/moderately differentiated) | 25 (58.1%) | 77 (70.0%) | |||
| High-grade (poorly differentiated) | 18 (41.9%) | 33 (30.0%) | |||
| 2018 FIGO stage (%) | 0.003 | – | 0.183 | ||
| II | 13 (30.2%) | 63 (57.3%) | |||
| III | 25 (58.1%) | 44 (40.0%) | |||
| IVA | 5 (11.6%) | 3 (2.7%) | |||
| T stage (%) | 0.001 | 1.91 (0.95, 3.85) | 0.071 | ||
| T2 | 24 (55.8%) | 92 (83.6%) | |||
| T3 | 14 (32.6%) | 15 (13.6%) | |||
| T4 | 5 (11.6%) | 3 (2.7%) | |||
| Tumor maximum diameter | 4.47 ± 1.26 | 4.96 ± 0.96 | 0.012 | – | 0.477 |
| LNM (%) | <0.001 | 2.19 (1.24, 3.87) | 0.007 | ||
| Negative | 16 (37.2%) | 69 (62.7%) | |||
| Pelvic LNM | 13 (30.2%) | 35 (31.8%) | |||
| Para-aortic LNM | 14 (32.6%) | 6 (5.5%) | |||
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range according to their distribution; categorical variables are presented as n (%).
BMI, Body mass index; SCC-Ag, Serum levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen; FIGO, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; LNM, Lymph node metastasis.
Performance of models in predicting early recurrence.
| Cohort | Model | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity% | Specificity% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training cohort | Clinical model | 0.697 (0.598,0.797) | 48.8 | 85.5 |
| MAD | 0.756 (0.673,0.838) | 95.3 | 52.7 | |
| Combined model | 0.804 (0.725,0.883) | 67.4 | 85.5 | |
| Testing cohort | Clinical model | 0.667 (0.527,0.806) | 84.1 | 51.1 |
| MAD | 0.783 (0.671,0.894) | 94.7 | 53.2 | |
| Combined model | 0.821 (0.722,0.919) | 94.7 | 70.2 |
AUC, area under the curve; MAD, mean absolute deviation.
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic curves of the clinical model, MAD, and combined model in predicting the early recurrence of LACSC treated with CCRT in the training cohort (A) and testing cohort (B).
Comparison of first-order texture features between recurrence and non-recurrence group in the training cohort.
| Parameters | Recurrence (n=43) | Non-recurrence (n=110) | p-value | Multivariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | p-value | ||||
| ADC5%(10-3 mm2/s) | 0.78 ± 0.09 | 0.80 ± 0.12 | 0.292 | ||
| ADC10%(10-3 mm2/s) | 0.81 ± 0.10 | 0.83 ± 0.13 | 0.267 | ||
| ADC25%(10-3 mm2/s) | 0.87 ± 0.11 | 0.91 ± 0.14 | 0.171 | ||
| ADC50%(10-3 mm2/s) | 0.96 ± 0.13 | 1.01 ± 0.16 | 0.047 | ||
| ADC75%(10-3 mm2/s) | 1.05 (0.95, 1.19) | 1.16 (1.06, 1.29) | 0.001 | ||
| ADC90%(10-3 mm2/s) | 1.24 ± 0.18 | 1.39 ± 0.20 | <0.001 | – | 0.474 |
| ADC95%(10-3 mm2/s) | 1.37 ± 0.19 | 1.53 ± 0.21 | <0.001 | ||
| ADCmax(10-3 mm2/s) | 2.05 ± 0.38 | 2.16 ± 0.36 | 0.078 | ||
| ADCmin(10-3 mm2/s) | 0.64 (0.56, 0.72) | 0.66 (0.58, 0.75) | 0.304 | ||
| ADCmean(10-3 mm2/s) | 1.00 ± 0.13 | 1.07 ± 0.15 | 0.007 | ||
| Energy(109) | 1.92 (1.28, 3.76) | 1.62 (0.96, 3.53) | 0.230 | ||
| Entropy | 4.29 ± 0.35 | 4.56 ± 0.34 | <0.001 | ||
| IQR | 203.00 (164.50, 250.00) | 257.50 (203.00, 319.38) | <0.001 | ||
| Kurtosis | 5.91 (4.69, 7.39) | 5.06 (3.85, 6.24) | 0.005 | – | 0.207 |
| MAD | 139.92 ± 35.67 | 180.06 ± 48.42 | <0.001 | 0.98 (0.96, 0.99) | <0.001 |
| Range(103) | 1.37 (1.09, 1.64) | 1.44 (1.25, 1.79) | 0.122 | ||
| rMAD | 85.80 (71.44, 107.60) | 113.62 (89.74, 137.80) | <0.001 | ||
| RMS(103) | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 1.10 ± 0.15 | 0.003 | ||
| Skewness | 1.45 (1.12, 1.68) | 1.35 (1.02, 1.58) | 0.092 | ||
| Total Energy(1010) | 2.82 (1.76, 5.06) | 2.69 (1.40, 4.87) | 0.201 | ||
| Uniformity | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | ||
| Variance(104) | 3.42 (2.27, 4.75) | 5.22 (3.43, 7.32) | <0.001 | ||
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range according to their distribution.
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; IQR, interquartile range; MAD ,mean absolute deviation; rMAD, robust mean absolute deviation; RMS, root mean squared.
Figure 3Nomogram and calibration curves for the combined model. (A) Nomogram for the combined model. (B) The calibration curve of the training cohort. (C) The calibration curve of the testing cohort.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier curves of the combined model for 2-year RFS in the training cohort (A) (p < 0.001) and testing cohort (B) (p < 0.001).