| Literature DB >> 35832854 |
Neeraj Garg1, Divyanshu Sinha2, Babita Yadav3, Bhoomi Gupta4, Sachin Gupta3, Shahajan Miah5.
Abstract
Microsatellites are small, repetitive sequences found all across the human genome. Microsatellite instability is the phenomenon of variations in the length of microsatellites induced by the insertion or deletion of repeat units in tumor tissue (MSI). MSI-type stomach malignancy has distinct genetic phenotypes and clinic pathological characteristics, and the stability of microsatellites influences whether or not patients with gastric mesothelioma react to immunotherapy. As a result, determining MSI status prior to surgery is critical for developing treatment options for individuals with gastric cancer. Traditional MSI detection approaches need immunological histochemistry and genetic analysis, which adds to the expense and makes it difficult to apply to every patient in clinical practice. In this study, to predict the MSI status of gastric cancer patients, researchers used image feature extraction technology and a machine learning algorithm to evaluate high-resolution histopathology pictures of patients. 279 cases of raw data were obtained from the TCGA database, 442 samples were obtained after preprocessing and upsampling, and 445 quantitative image features, including first-order statistics of impressions, texture features, and wavelet features, were extracted from the histopathological images of each sample. To filter the characteristics and provide a prediction label (risk score) for MSI status of gastric cancer, Lasso regression was utilized. The predictive label's classification performance was evaluated using a logistic classification model, which was then coupled with the clinical data of each patient to create a customized nomogram for MSI status prediction using multivariate analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35832854 PMCID: PMC9273447 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1012684
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Construction process of MSI prediction model for gastric cancer.
Risk score of the proposed model over the number of features and log variance.
| Log | Binomial deviance | Number of features |
|---|---|---|
| -2 | 1.4 | 2 |
| -4 | 1.35 | 5 |
| -6 | 1.3 | 5 |
| -8 | 1.25 | 9 |
| -10 | 1.2 | 12 |
Risk coefficient of the proposed model over number of feature and log variance.
| Log | Coefficients | Number of features |
|---|---|---|
| -2 | 10 | 12 |
| -4 | 5 | 11 |
| -6 | 3 | 8 |
| -8 | 2.5 | 11 |
| -10 | 5 | 12 |
Clinical characteristics of the patients.
| Feature item | Classification | MSI ( | MSS ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean | 70.91 | 63.74 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Range | 46~90 | 36~90 | ||
| Gender | Male | 35 (54.5%) | 157 (71.2%) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Female | 25 (45.5%) | 64 (28.8%) | ||
| TNM stage | I | 12 (21.8%) | 25 (11.3%) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| II | 20 (36.4%) | 67 (30.1%) | ||
| III | 19 (34.5%) | 106 (47.7%) | ||
| IV | 4 (7.3%) | 24 (10.8%) |
Figure 2Lasso regression process.
Figure 3ROC curves of training set and test set.
Lasso regression results.
| Feature name | Regression coefficients |
|
|---|---|---|
| original_firstorder_10Percentile | 0.212 204 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| original_firstorder_90Percentile | 0.404 922 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| original_firstorder_Median | 6.118 815 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| original_firstorder_Skewness wavelet- | -0.817 240 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| HL_glcm_Imc2 wavelet- | -0.650 800 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| LL_firstorder_10Percentile wavelet- | 0.490 395 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| LL_firstorder_Median wavelet- | -5.750 580 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| LL_glcm_ClusterShade wavelet- | 1.133 542 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| LL_glrlm_GrayLevelEmphasis | -0.254 150 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
Each evaluation index of the classification model.
| Log | True positive rate | False positive rate | Train Auc:0.74 | Train Auc:0.75 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| -4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.16 | 0.18 |
| -6 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.21 | 0.25 |
| -8 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.45 | 0.48 |
| -10 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
Model evaluation results.
| Dataset | Precision | Recall | F1 value | AUC value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| Validation set | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.74 |
Figure 4Model evaluation results.
Evaluation results of model (before joining risk score).
| Points | 0-100 |
|---|---|
| Gender | 0 or 1 |
| Age | 30-90 |
| TNM stage | 01-Apr |
| Total point | 0-180 |
| Linear predictor | [-2.5,2.5] |
| Risk of MSI | 0.1-0.9 |
Evaluation results of model (after adding risk score).
| Points | 0-100 |
|---|---|
| Gender | 0 or 1 |
| Age | 30-90 |
| TNM stage | 01-Apr |
| Risk score | [-3.5,3.0] |
| Total point | 0-130 |
| Linear predictor | [-4,3] |
| Risk of MSI | 0.1-0.9 |
C-index evaluation of prediction model.
| Predictive model | C-index | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Before joining risk score | 0.7 | 0.64~0.74 |
| After joining risk score | 0.8 | 0.76~0.84 |
Figure 5Calibration curve comparisons.
Figure 6Decision curve comparison.
Decision curve comparison.
| Net benefit | High-risk threshold | Clinical feature | Risk score + clinical feature | ALL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.05 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 0 | 0 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.3 |
| 0.05 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0 |
| 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0 |
| 0.2 | 0.8 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0 |
| 0.25 | 0.9 | 0.03 | 0.1 | 0 |
| 0.3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Performance comparison of MSI prediction models.
| Method | Type of data | Image features | Clinical features | Joint model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Win | Histopathological images | 0.74 | _____ | ______ |
| Nano | CT image | 0.68 | 0.599 | 0.755 |
| Proposed model | Histopathological images | 0.75 | 0.697 | 0.801 |
(a) Before joining risk score
| Actual probability | Predicted probability | Apparent | Bias-corrected | Ideal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.09 | 0.2 |
| 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.4 |
| 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.6 |
| 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.8 |
(b) After joining risk score
| Actual probability | Predicted probability | Apparent | Bias-corrected | Ideal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.19 | 0.2 |
| 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.4 |
| 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.68 | 0.6 |
| 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.8 |