| Literature DB >> 35747803 |
Dongqing Wang1,2, Zijian Zhuang1,2, Shuting Wu2, Jixiang Chen3, Xin Fan3, Mengsi Liu2, Haitao Zhu1,2, Ming Wang1, Jinmei Zou1, Qun Zhou1, Peng Zhou2, Jing Xue2, Xiangpan Meng4,5, Shenghong Ju4,5, Lirong Zhang1,4.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) radiomics of the regional largest short-axis lymph nodes for evaluating lymph node metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: clinical prediction rule; dual-energy scanned projection; lymph node metastasis; machine learning; radiomics; rectal cancer (RC)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35747803 PMCID: PMC9209707 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.846840
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Patient selection flowchart.
Figure 2(A) After searching for lymph nodes in the mesorectum (red) and extramesenteric (blue) areas, the largest lymph nodes (white box) were delineated along its edge (blue line) in the axial iodine map (B) to form a 3D-ROI (D). The ROI could be used for 120kVp-like images without registration (E). The pseudocolor map of the largest lymph nodes in the iodine map (C) and 120kVp-like image (F) show apparent internal heterogeneity.
The list of the radiomics features.
| Feature category | Feature number |
|---|---|
| original | |
| shape | 14 |
| first order | 18 |
| GLCM | 22 |
| GLRLM | 16 |
| GLSZM | 16 |
| NGTDM | 5 |
| GLDM | 14 |
| wavelet | |
| LLH | 91 |
| LHL | 91 |
| LHH | 91 |
| HHL | 91 |
| HLL | 91 |
| HLH | 91 |
| HHH | 91 |
| LLL | 91 |
GLCM, gray-level co-occurrence matrix; GLRLM, gray-level run-length matrix; GLSZM, gray-level size zone matrix; NGTDM, neighbourhood gray-tone difference matrix; GLDM, gray level dependence matrix; L, lowpass filters; H, highpass filters.
In bold: "TOTAL" is just the sum of feature numbers.
Figure 3A study workflow. Imaging processing began by selecting the largest lymph nodes; finally, four categories of methods were evaluated.
Study sample demographics and clinical characteristics.
| Characteristics | Training group (n=99) | Testing group (n=42) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, No. (%) | 0.208 | ||
| male | 74 (74.7%) | 27 (64.3%) | |
| female | 25 (25.3%) | 15 (35.7%) | |
| Age (IQR) | 67 (57–73) | 67.5 (58-72.25) | 0.787 |
| Long diameter, mm (IQR) | 7.85 (6.06-9.88) | 7.03 (5.69-9.45) | 0.668 |
| Short diameter, mm (IQR) | 5.68 (4.64-8.02) | 5.56 (4.39-7.19) | 0.573 |
| T stage | 0.971 | ||
| 1 | 10 (10.1%) | 5 (11.9%) | |
| 2 | 27 (27.3%) | 10 (23.8%) | |
| 3 | 53 (53.5%) | 23 (54.8%) | |
| 4 | 9 (9.1%) | 4 (9.5%) | |
| CEA, ng/ml (IQR) | 3.91 (2.18-7.17) | 3.47 (1.92-7.85) | 0.690 |
| LNM, No. (%) | 0.918 | ||
| positive | 41 (41.4%) | 17 (40.5%) | |
| nagetive | 58 (58.6%) | 25 (59.5%) |
IQR, interquartile range.
Study sample demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with LNM+ and LNM- rectal cancer.
| Characteristics | Training group | Testing group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNM+ | LNM- | LNM+ | LNM- | |||
| Sex, No. (%) | 0.525 | |||||
| male | 32 (78%) | 42 (72.4%) | 13 (76.5%) | 11 (44%) | 0.174 | |
| female | 9 (22%) | 16 (27.6%) | 4 (23.5%) | 14 (56%) | ||
| Age (IQR) | 66 | 68 | 0.991 | 68.53 ± 9.04 | 64.52 ± 9.55 | 0.176 |
| Long-axis diameter, mm(IQR) | 8.84 | 7.15 | 0.002 | 8.74 | 6.88 | 0.02 |
| Short-axis diameter, mm(IQR) | 7.29 | 5.06 | <0.001 | 6.8 | 4.97 | 0.002 |
| T stage, No. (%) | 0.005 | <0.001 | ||||
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 10 (17.2%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20%) | ||
| 2 | 8 (19.5%) | 19 (32.8%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (40%) | ||
| 3 | 27 (65.9%) | 26 (44.8%) | 13 (76.5%) | 10 (40%) | ||
| 4 | 6 (14.6%) | 3 (5.2%) | 4 (23.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| CEA, ng/ml(IQR) | 4.53 | 3.31 | 0.003 | 3.69 | 3.2 | 0.663 |
IQR, interquartile range.
Comparison of morphology predictors, CEA and DECT quantitative parameters on distributions, AUCs, cut-offs, sensitivities and specificities.
| Predictor | Overall | LNM- | LNM+ | AUC | CUT-OFF | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| long-axis diameter, mm | 7.57 | 7.00 | 8.79 | <0.001 | 0.691 | 6.45 | 62.1 | 80.7 |
| short-axis diameter, mm | 4.99 | 4.99 | 7.05 | <0.001 | 0.755 | 8.19 | 60.3 | 71.1 |
| APNIC | 0.1786 | 0.1889 | 0.1710 | 0.053 | 0.596 | 0.1760 | 60.4 | 60.3 |
| VPNIC | 0.6622 | 0.6937 | 0.6288 | 0.002 | 0.655 | 0.5545 | 84.3 | 41.4 |
| APNZeff | 0.7512 | 0.7563 | 0.7494 | 0.56 | 0.596 | 0.7537 | 53 | 58.6 |
| VPNZeff | 0.9458 | 0.9530 | 0.9421 | 0.014 | 0.622 | 0.9551 | 48.2 | 70.7 |
| CEA, ng/ml | 3.90 | 3.35 | 4.42 | 0.008 | 0.631 | 3.36 | 70.7 | 50.6 |
Data are reported as medians with interquartile ranges. P values comes from Mann-Whitney U test. AUCs are reported with 95% confidence interval. The selection of cut-off was based on the maximum Youden index. APNIC: arterial phase normalized iodine concentration; VPNIC: venous phase normalized iodine concentration; APNZeff: arterial phase normalized effective atomic number; VPNZeff: venous phase normalized effective atomic number.
Figure 4Violin plot of a short-axis diameter (A), a long-axis diameter (B), and CEA (C). All of them were significantly different between LNM+ and LNM- groups.
Figure 5Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 4 different normalized DECT parameters used to discriminate LNM (+) from LNM (-) in the overall cohort. APNIC, arterial phase normalized iodine concentration; VPNIC, venous phase normalized iodine concentration; APNZeff, arterial phase normalized effective atomic number; VPNZeff, venous phase normalized effective atomic number.
Figure 6The contribution of 10 features in the signature of 120kVp-like images (A) and the signature of iodine map (D). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to discriminate LNM (+) from LNM (-) for the 120kvp-like radiomics model (B) and iodine map (E) radiomics model in the training and testing cohort. Violin plots of Rad-signature120kvp (C) and Rad-signatureImap (F) to discriminate LNM (+) from LNM (-).
The cut-offs, sensitivities, specificities and IDI index of two radiomics signatures in the testing group.
| Rad-signature120kvp | Rad-signatureImap | |
|---|---|---|
| cut-off | 0.1851 | 0.5122 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 100.0 [95CI%:80.5-100.0] | 70.59 [95CI%:44.0-89.7] |
| Specificity (%) | 80.0 [95CI%:59.3-93.2] | 88.00 [95CI%:68.8-97.5] |
| IDI to SD | 0.262 | 0.133 |
| IDI to LD | 0.329 | 0.199 |
| IDI to VPNIC | 0.29 | 0.161 |
| IDI to CEA | 0.414 | 0.285 |
The selection of cut-off was based on the maximum Youden index. Only the IDI index to DECT quantitative parameter with the highest AUC (VPNIC) was calculated. SD, short-axis diameter; LD, long-axis diameter; VPNIC, venous phase normalized iodine concentration.
P-values of DeLong test for AUC of 6 different signatures or indicators.
| Rad signature120kvp | Rad signatureI map | Short diameter | Long diameter | VP NIC | CEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rad-signature120kvp (AUC=0.922) | – | 0.2299 | 0.0473* | 0.013* | 0.0359* | 0.0001* |
| Rad-signatureImap (AUC=0.866) | 0.2299 | – | 0.2063 | 0.0333* | 0.1167 | 0.0018* |
| Short-axis diameter (AUC=0.779) | 0.0473* | 0.2063 | – | 0.1682 | 0.1719 | 0.0098* |
| Long-axis diameter (AUC=0.714) | 0.013* | 0.0333* | 0.1682 | – | 0.9731 | 0.1049 |
| VP NIC (AUC=0.718) | 0.0359* | 0.1167 | 0.5739 | 0.9731 | – | 0.1719 |
| CEA (AUC=0.540) | 0.0001* | 0.0018* | 0.0098* | 0.1049 | 0.5739 | – |
*P-value<0.05; VP NIC, venous phase normalized iodine concentration.
Figure 7Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 6 different signatures or indicators in the testing cohort. The 120kVp-like radiomics signature had the highest area under Curve (AUC). Only the curve of the DECT quantitative parameter with the highest AUC (VPNIC) was drawn to improve readability. VPNIC: venous phase normalized iodine concentration.
Figure 8Decision curve of 6 different signatures or indicators in the testing cohort. The 120kVp-like radiomics signature had the highest area under Curve (AUC) in the majority range of risk thresholds. Only the curve of DECT quantitative parameter with the highest AUC was drawn to improve readability. VPNIC: venous phase normalized iodine concentration.