| Literature DB >> 35795043 |
Peng-Chao Zhan1,2, Pei-Jie Lyu1, Zhen Li3, Xing Liu1, Hui-Xia Wang1, Na-Na Liu1,2, Yuyuan Zhang3, Wenpeng Huang1,2, Yan Chen1, Jian-Bo Gao1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: The study aimed to construct and evaluate a CT-Based radiomics model for noninvasive detecting perineural invasion (PNI) of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) preoperatively. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: CT; nomogram; perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; perineural invasion; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35795043 PMCID: PMC9252420 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.900478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The flowchart of patient selection in this study.
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohort.
| Characteristic | Training cohort (n = 106) | Validation cohort (n = 55) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNI negative | PNI positive |
| PNI negative | PNI positive |
| |
|
| 60.4±10.7 | 60.6±9.9 | 0.920 | 65.6±6.4 | 62.4±8.4 | 0.152 |
|
| 0.078 | 0.022 | ||||
| Female | 16 | 31 | 9 | 11 | ||
| Male | 11 | 48 | 5 | 30 | ||
|
| 0.473 | 0.927 | ||||
| Jaundice | 14 | 44 | 8 | 24 | ||
| Abdominal malaise | 5 | 20 | 3 | 7 | ||
| Both | 8 | 15 | 3 | 10 | ||
|
| > 0.999 | 0.012 | ||||
| ≤25 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 1 | ||
| >25 | 23 | 68 | 10 | 40 | ||
|
| 0.417 | 0.047 | ||||
| ≤10 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | ||
| >10 | 24 | 74 | 11 | 40 | ||
|
| 0.755 | 0.181 | ||||
| ≤40 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 4 | ||
| >40 | 24 | 67 | 10 | 37 | ||
|
| 0.508 | 0.638 | ||||
| ≤40 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 4 | ||
| >40 | 25 | 68 | 12 | 37 | ||
|
| 0.349 | 0.007 | ||||
| ≤40 | 25 | 65 | 7 | 36 | ||
| >40 | 2 | 14 | 7 | 5 | ||
|
| > 0.999 | 0.703 | ||||
| A | 4 | 11 | 3 | 7 | ||
| B | 23 | 68 | 11 | 34 | ||
|
| 0.392 | 0.259 | ||||
| ≤40 | 7 | 13 | 5 | 7 | ||
| >40 | 20 | 66 | 9 | 34 | ||
|
| 0.805 | > 0.999 | ||||
| ≤5 | 19 | 58 | 11 | 32 | ||
| >5 | 8 | 21 | 3 | 9 | ||
|
| 0.553 | > 0.999 | ||||
| ≤35 | 24 | 64 | 14 | 39 | ||
| >35 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 2 | ||
|
| < 0.001 | 0.529 | ||||
| I/II | 22 | 24 | 7 | 26 | ||
| III/IV | 5 | 55 | 7 | 15 | ||
|
| 0.446 | > 0.999 | ||||
| 1/2 | 22 | 57 | 13 | 36 | ||
| 3/4 | 5 | 22 | 1 | 5 | ||
|
| 0.801 | > 0.999 | ||||
| 0 | 19 | 59 | 9 | 27 | ||
| 1/2 | 8 | 20 | 5 | 14 | ||
|
| 0.362±0.320 | 0.876±0.175 | < 0.001 | 0.301±0.352 | 0.816±0.295 | < 0.001 |
Figure 2Representative CT images (A, D; arrow) and the corresponding cropped images (B, E), and the corresponding histology of PNI negative (C) and PNI positive tumors (F). H&E, hematoxylin and eosin, ×150.
Figure 3Radiomic feature selection by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression. (A) The selection of tuning parameter (λ) in the LASSO model used 10-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The AUC curve was plotted versus log (λ). (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of the radiomics features. A vertical line was plotted at the optimal λ value, which resulted in 15 features with nonzero coefficients.
Figure 4Radiomics score, ROC curve analysis of all models in the training dataset and the testing dataset. (A) Waterfall plot for distribution of radiomics scores for each patient. (B) ROC curves of all models for predicting PNI in the training dataset. (C) ROC curves of all models for predicting PNI in the testing dataset.
Univariate logistic regression in the training cohort.
| Variable | Odd Ratio |
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 1.002 (0.958, 1.046) | 0.916 |
|
| 0.444 (0.178, 1.072) | 0.074 |
|
| 1.273 (0.403, 4.019) | 0.681 |
|
| 0.930 (0.286, 3.612) | 0.909 |
|
| 0.541 (0.123, 2.790) | 0.423 |
|
| 1.433 (0.412, 6.679) | 0.601 |
|
| 2.022 (0.497, 13.657) | 0.381 |
|
| 0.371 (0.056, 1.458) | 0.211 |
|
| 1.075 (0.277, 3.498) | 0.909 |
|
| 0.563 (0.201, 1.671) | 0.281 |
|
| 1.163 (0.426, 2.993) | 0.759 |
|
| 0.533 (0.116, 1.797) | 0.353 |
|
| 10.083 (3.651, 33.024) | < 0.001 |
|
| 1.698 (0.606, 5.562) | 0.340 |
|
| 0.805 (0.311, 2.207) | 0.661 |
Performances of models for PNI prediction.
| Model | Training cohort | Validation cohort | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC (95%CI) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC (95%CI) | |
|
| 0.696 | 0.815 | 0.726 | 0.756 (0.665-0.846) | 0.634 | 0.500 | 0.600 | 0.567 (0.412-0.722) |
|
| 0.886 | 0.815 | 0.868 | 0.914 (0.853-0.976) | 0.829 | 0.643 | 0.782 | 0.885 (0.797-0.974) |
|
| 0.835 | 0.926 | 0.858 | 0.950 (0.912-0.988) | 0.780 | 0.857 | 0.800 | 0.791 (0.642-0.939) |
Figure 5Nomogram developed with the radiomics model and calibration curves of the nomogram. (A) The developed radiomics nomogram to predict PNI in patients with pCCA. (B) Calibration curves of the nomogram. The x-axis and the y-axis show the nomogram predicted probabilities of PNI and the actual probabilities, respectively. The diagonal gray line presents a perfect prediction, and the red solid line presents the predictive performance of the nomogram. Better prediction is indicated by a closer fit of the red solid line to the diagonal gray line.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis for the combined model, radiomics model, and clinical model in the training dataset (A) and in the testing dataset (B). The y-axis represents the net benefit. The gray line represents the assumption that all patients were confirmed with PNI; however, the black line is the opposite. The blue line represents the clinical model. The red line represents the radiomics model. The green line represents the combined model.