| Literature DB >> 35842679 |
Xiaomiao Zhang1, Jingwei Zhao1, Qi Zhang1, Sicong Wang2, Jieying Zhang1, Jusheng An3, Lizhi Xie2, Xiaoduo Yu4, Xinming Zhao5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics value in predicting the survival of patients with locally advanced cervical squamous cell cancer (LACSC) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).Entities:
Keywords: Cervical squamous cell cancer; FIGO stage; Overall survival; Progression-free survival; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35842679 PMCID: PMC9287951 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00474-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 5.605
Fig. 1The flowchart of the study cohort
Comparison of clinical characteristics between training and testing groups
| Parameters | Training ( | Testing ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 52.83 ± 8.76 | 52.63 ± 9.11 | 0.891 |
| BMI (kg/m2, mean ± SD) | 24.80 ± 3.44 | 24.63 ± 3.78 | 0.757 |
| SCC-Ag (ng/mL, mean ± SD) | 11.90 ± 22.20 | 11.02 ± 17.99 | 0.792 |
| Tumor grade (%) | 0.062 | ||
| Low-grade (well/moderately differentiated) | 81 (63.3%) | 44 (77.2%) | |
| High-grade (poorly differentiated) | 47 (36.7%) | 13 (22.8%) | |
| T stage (%) | 0.435 | ||
| T2 | 98 (76.6%) | 39 (68.4%) | |
| T3 | 25 (19.5%) | 16 (28.1%) | |
| T4 | 5 (3.9%) | 2 (3.5%) | |
| 2018 FIGO stage (%) | 0.928 | ||
| II | 64 (50.0%) | 27 (47.4%) | |
| III | 59 (46.1%) | 28 (49.1%) | |
| IVA | 5 (3.9%) | 2 (3.5%) | |
| Tumor maximum-diameter (cm, mean ± SD) | 4.49 ± 1.13 | 4.33 ± 1.35 | 0.400 |
| LNM position (%) | 0.906 | ||
| Negative | 74 (57.8%) | 31 (54.4%) | |
| Pelvic LNM | 40 (31.3%) | 19 (33.3%) | |
| Para-aortic LNM | 14 (10.9%) | 7 (12.3%) | |
| LNM number (%) | 0.813 | ||
| 0 | 74 (57.8%) | 31 (54.4%) | |
| ≤2 | 24 (18.8%) | 13 (22.8%) | |
| >2 | 30 (23.4%) | 13 (22.8%) |
SD Standard deviation, BMI Body mass index, SCC-Ag Serum levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen, FIGO Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, LNM Lymph node metastasis.
Clinical characteristics analysis for progression-free survival and overall survival
| Characteristics | Progression-free survival | Overall survival | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR(95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||
| Age | 0.972(0.942, 1.002) | 0.069 | 0.994(0.950, 1.041) | 0.807 | ||||
| BMI | 0.954(0.877, 1.037) | 0.265 | 1.003(0.895, 1.124) | 0.960 | ||||
| SCC | 1.001(0.990, 1.012) | 0.875 | 1.008(0.995, 1.021) | 0.231 | ||||
| Tumor grade | 1.327(0.744, 2.366) | 0.338 | 2.220(1.013, 4.867) | 0.046 | ||||
| T stage | 2.934(1.952, 4410) | <0.001 | 1.849(1.116, 3.063) | 0.017 | 3.332(1.897, 5.589) | <0.001 | 2.409(1.161, 5.002) | 0.018 |
| Tumor maximum diameter | 1.508(1.178, 1.930) | 0.001 | 1.206(0.923, 1.577) | 0.170 | 1.610(1.171, 2.214) | 0.003 | ||
| LNM position | 2.476(1.666, 3.679) | <0.001 | 1.678(1.049, 2.684) | 0.031 | 2.606(1.555, 4.366) | <0.001 | 1.521(0.758, 3.054) | 0.238 |
| LNM number | 1.910(1.377, 2.650) | <0.001 | 2.054(1.298, 3.252) | 0.002 | ||||
BMI Body mass index, SCC-Ag Serum levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen, LNM Lymph node metastasis.
Prognostic prediction models for the outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical squamous cell cancer
| Prediction Models | Training | Testing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wald Test | C-index | Wald Test | C-index | |||
| 2018 FIGO staging system | 20.83 | <0.001 | 0.657 | 10.82 | 0.001 | 0.677 |
| Clinical model | 33.57 | <0.001 | 0.731 | 15.94 | <0.001 | 0.725 |
| Rad-PFS | 40.17 | <0.001 | 0.764 | 13.62 | <0.001 | 0.762 |
| Combined model | 50.67 | <0.001 | 0.792 | 21.28 | <0.001 | 0.809 |
| 2018 FIGO staging system | 12.54 | <0.001 | 0.665 | 5.54 | 0.02 | 0.633 |
| Clinical model | 22.53 | <0.001 | 0.708 | 5.96 | 0.01 | 0.693 |
| Rad-OS | 23.97 | <0.001 | 0.793 | 12.72 | <0.001 | 0.750 |
| Combined model | 31.59 | <0.001 | 0.822 | 13.43 | <0.001 | 0.785 |
PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, FIGO Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Radiomics features included in the construction of the Rad-PFS
| Feature name | |
|---|---|
| feature 1 | T2WI_original_glszm_LargerAreaLowGrayLevelEmphasis |
| feature 2 | T2WI_original_glszm_SizeZoneNonUniformity |
| feature 3 | ADC_original_shape_Sphericity |
| feature 4 | ADC_original_firstorder_Kurtosis |
| feature 5 | ADC_original_firstorder_Mean |
| feature 6 | ADC_original_glcm_ClusterShade |
| feature 7 | ADC_original_glcm_DifferenceVariance |
| feature 8 | ADC_original_glcm_Imc1 |
| feature 9 | ADC_original_glcm_Idmn |
| feature 10 | Arterial-phase_original_gldm_LowGrayLevelEmphasis |
| feature 11 | Delayed-phase_original_firstorder_TotalEnergy |
| feature 12 | Delayed-phase_original_glszm_ZoneEntropy |
T2WI T2-weighted imaging, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, GLSZM gray level size zone matrix, GLCM gray level co-occurrence matrix, GLDM gray level dependence matrix.
Radiomics features included in the construction of the Rad-OS
| Feature name | |
|---|---|
| feature 1 | ADC_original_firstorder_Maximum |
| feature 2 | ADC_original_glcm_ClusterProminence |
| feature 3 | ADC_original_glcm_DifferenceVariance |
| feature 4 | ADC_original_glcm_JointEntropy |
| feature 5 | ADC_original_glcm_Imc1 |
| feature 6 | Arterial-phase_original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterColumn |
| feature 7 | Arterial-phase_original_firstorder_Skewness |
| feature 8 | Arterial-phase_original_glszm_LowGrayLevelZoneEmphasis |
| feature 9 | Arterial-phase_original_gldm_LowGrayLevelEmphasis |
| feature 10 | Delayed-phase_original_firstorder_TotalEnergy |
| feature 11 | Delayed-phase_original_glrlm_RunLengthNonUniformity |
ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, GLCM gray level co-occurrence matrix, GLSZM gray level size zone matrix, GLDM gray level dependence matrix, GLRLM gray level run length matrix.
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves of the Rad-PFS in the training group (a) and testing group (b); Kaplan-Meier curves of the Rad-OS in the training group (c) and testing group (d)
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier curves of the combined model for PFS in the training group (a) and testing group (b); Kaplan-Meier curves of the combined model for OS in the training group (c) and testing group (d)
Fig. 4The nomogram (a) and calibration curves of training group (b) and testing group (c) for the combined PFS prediction model. The diagonal dashed line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The blue, red, and green line represents the performance of the nomogram, of which a closer fit to the diagonal line represents a better prediction
Fig. 5The nomogram (a) and calibration curves of training group (b) and testing group (c) for the combined OS prediction model. The diagonal dashed line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The blue line represents the performance of the nomogram, of which a closer fit to the diagonal line represents a better prediction