| Literature DB >> 35804973 |
Qiyi Hu1, Guojie Wang2, Xiaoyi Song3, Jingjing Wan1, Man Li3, Fan Zhang4, Qingling Chen1, Xiaoling Cao1, Shaolin Li2, Ying Wang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the predictive efficacy of radiomics analyses based on readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (RESOLVE-DWI) for prognosis evaluation in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in order to provide further information for clinical decision making and intervention.Entities:
Keywords: diffusion-weighted imaging; heterogeneity; nasopharyngeal carcinoma; prognostic prediction; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35804973 PMCID: PMC9264891 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Workflows: (1) MRI acquisition and segmentation; (2) quantitative feature extraction; (3) radiomic feature and model selection; (4) prediction models built based on the extracted imaging features from different sequence combinations.
Clinical characteristics of the patients with NPC in the relapsed or metastatic group and the non-relapsed or metastatic group.
| Characteristics | Type | Positive (%) | Negative (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 34 | 77 | 0.516 |
| Female | 8 | 35 | ||
| Age (years) | Range | 19–68 | 23–63 | 0.810 |
| Overall stage | I | 0 | 2 | 0.026 |
| II | 3 | 20 | ||
| III | 17 | 56 | ||
| IVa | 17 | 34 | ||
| IVb | 5 | 0 | ||
| T stage | I | 2 | 25 | 0.915 |
| II | 12 | 22 | ||
| III | 13 | 37 | ||
| IV | 15 | 28 | ||
| N stage | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0.034 |
| 1 | 11 | 48 | ||
| 2 | 21 | 45 | ||
| 3 | 9 | 10 | ||
| M stage | 0 | 42 | 107 | 0.085 |
| 1 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Histology | WHO type I | 0 | 1 | |
| WHO type II–III | 42 | 111 | 0.540 |
Figure 2Five existing mainstream algorithms (Logistic Regression, kNN, Naive Bayes, Random Forest, and XGB Classifier) were chosen for the training and validation, which showed that AUC values obtained using the RF method are the highest among all of the models of different sequence combinations: (a) DWI + ADC; (b) T2WI + CE-T1WI; (c) DWI + ADC + T2WI; (d) DWI + ADC + CE-T1WI; (e) DWI + ADC + T2WI + CE-T1WI.
Figure 3The importance of selected features derived from different sequence combinations: (a) DWI + ADC; (b) T2WI + CE-T1WI; (c) DWI + ADC + T2WI; (d) DWI + ADC + CE-T1WI; (e) DWI + ADC + T2WI + CE-T1WI.
Figure 4Average AUC values in the validation set of the RF machine learning model based on selected features of model 1 (a), model 2 (b), model 3 (c), model 4 (d), and model 5 (e).
The performance metrics for five models in the validation set.
| Models | AUC | Accuracy | Specificity | Precision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DWI + ADC | 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79–0.81) | 0.766 | 0.926 | 0.620 |
| T2WI + CE-T1WI | 0.72 (95% CI: 0.71–0.74) | 0.752 | 0.930 | 0.520 |
| DWI + ADC + T2WI | 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64–0.68) | 0.779 | 0.925 | 0.689 |
| DWI + ADC + CE-T1WI | 0.74(95% CI: 0.73–0.76) | 0.766 | 0.918 | 0.548 |
| DWI + ADC + T2WI + CE-T1WI | 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74–0.76) | 0.766 | 0.923 | 0.811 |