| Literature DB >> 35874634 |
Fei Wang1,2, Chao Cheng3, Shengnan Ren3, Zhongyi Wu2, Tao Wang3, Xiaodong Yang2, Changjing Zuo3, Zhuangzhi Yan1, Zhaobang Liu2.
Abstract
Background: 18F-FDG PET/CT is widely used in the prognosis evaluation of tumor patients. The radiomics features can provide additional information for clinical prognostic assessment. Purpose: Purpose is to explore the prognostic value of radiomics features from dual-time 18F-FDG PET/CT images for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Materials andEntities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35874634 PMCID: PMC9303166 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6528865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Figure 1The workflow of radiomics analysis for prognosis. (a) Dual-time 18F-FDG PET/CT image data construction, (b) data preprocessing, including image registration, lesion segmentation, and data normalization, (c) features extraction, including statistical, morphological, and texture features, (d) features selection, including the univariate analysis and elastic net, (e) statistics analysis.
Clinical characteristics of the patients in the training cohort and the validation cohort. #Data are the number of patients and data in parentheses are the ratio.
| Variable | Training cohort ( | Validation cohort ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 68 (26, 82) | 67 (45, 84) | 0.985 |
|
| |||
| Sex# | 0.156 | ||
| Male | 31 (67.4%) | 12 (50.0%) | |
| Female | 15 (32.6%) | 12 (50.0%) | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.345 | ||
| 1 | 2 (4.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | |
| 2 | 12 (26.1%) | 5 (20.8%) | |
| 3 | 15 (32.6%) | 13 (54.2%) | |
| 4 | 17 (32.7%) | 5 (20.8%) | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.102 | ||
| 0 | 30 (65.2%) | 10 (41.7%) | |
| 1 | 16 (34.8%) | 14 (58.3%) | |
|
| |||
| ECOG# | 0.458 | ||
| 0 | 8 (17.4%) | 7 (29.2%) | |
| 1 | 23 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | |
| 2 | 15 (32.6%) | 8 (33.3%) | |
|
| |||
| CA19-9 | 365 (2, 2125) | 132 (2, 1200) | 0.504 |
|
| |||
| Longest diameter (cm) | 3.6 (1.5, 7.5) | 3.9 (1.0, 6.3) | 0.268 |
|
| |||
| Location# | 0.783 | ||
| Head | 34 (73.9%) | 17 (70.8%) | |
| Body/distal | 12 (26.1%) | 7 (29.2%) | |
|
| |||
| Chemotherapy# | 0.312 | ||
| 0 | 29 (63.0%) | 18 (75.0%) | |
| 1 | 17 (37.0%) | 16 (25.0%) | |
|
| |||
| Dose | 37.2 (30, 46.8) | 36 (30, 46.8) | 0.454 |
|
| |||
| OS (month) | 15.4 (7.5, 56.8) | 14 (10.6, 43.9) | 0.449 |
Data are the median and data in parentheses are the range. Chi-square test and Mann–Whiney U test are used to compare the difference between categorical and continuous variables in the training cohort and the validation cohort, respectively. ECOG, eastern cooperative oncology group; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19–9; dose, radiotherapy dose (Gy).
Radiomics features were selected via the elastic net and the corresponding weights in retraining the Cox regression model.
| Feature name | Categories | Modality | Time | Weights | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early | Delay | Dual | ||||
| Solidity | Shape | — | Early | −3.7884 | — | −2.0451 |
| Contrast | GLDS (HHH) | CT | 0.3654 | 1.4669 | ||
| Contrast | GLDS (HHH) | PET | 0.5546 | 1.9619 | ||
| Energy | GLDS (LLL) | CT | 6.4719 | — | ||
| Contrast | GLDS (HHH) | PET | −0.1456 | — | ||
| Energy | GLCM (LLH-LHL-HLL) | CT | −0.1552 | — | ||
| Busyness | NGTDM (LLL) | PET | Delay | — | 3.5622 | 2.3483 |
| Entropy | Histogram (original) | CT | 0.8987 | 2.5573 | ||
| Gray level nonuniformity | GLSZM (LLH-LHL-HLL) | CT | 3.1435 | 3.1575 | ||
| Busyness | NGTDM (original) | PET | −1.2738 | — | ||
| Entropy | GLDS (original) | CT | 0.3695 | — | ||
| Mean | GLDS (LLL) | PET | −0.2466 | — | ||
GLCM, gray-level co-occurrence matrix; GLDS, gray-level difference statistics; GLRLM, gray-level run length matrix; GLZSM, gray-level zone size matrix; NGTDM, neighborhood gray-tone difference matrix; LHH = lowpass filter + highpass filter + highpass filter.
Figure 2The Kaplan–Meier curve represents the OS of LAPC stratified according to the median value of the Rad-score in the training cohort (early images (a) and (b), delayed images (c) and (d)). The log-rank p-value is shown on the right side of each graph.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival curves and risk group stratification based on dual-time images.
Univariate and multivariate regression analysis for the Rad-score, clinical risk factors, and conventional PET features in the 70 LAPC patients.
| Parameters | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Age | 1 (1–1) | 0.084 | ||
| Sex | 0.99 (0.6–1.7) | 0.98 | ||
| ECOG | 0.89 (0.63–1.3) | 0.5 | ||
| Tumor diameter | 1.3 (1.1–1.5) | 0.012 | 1.1 (0.86–1.4) | 0.414 |
| Location | 1.1 (0.64–2) | 0.68 | ||
| T stage | 1.8 (1.3–2.4) | <0.01 | 0.99 (0.63–1.6) | 0.97 |
| N stage | 1.7 (1.1–2.9) | 0.031 | 1.2 (0.66–2.1) | 0.61 |
| CA19-9 | 1 (1–1) | 0.063 | ||
| Chemotherapy | 0.39 (0.22–0.69) | 0.001 | 0.55 (0.26–1.2) | 0.11 |
| Dose | 0.9 (0.85–0.95) | <0.01 | 0.47 (0.21–1) | 0.056 |
| SUVmax (early) | 2.6 (0.88–7.5) | 0.083 | ||
| SUVmean (early) | 2.5 (0.85–7.1) | 0.097 | ||
| MTV (early) | 2.5 (0.65–9.3) | 0.19 | ||
| TLG (early) | 3.6 (1.1–1.2) | 0.037 | 0.77 (0.095–6.3) | 0.806 |
| SUVmax (delay) | 5.1 (1.6–17) | 0.007 | 2.1 (0.1–43) | 0.632 |
| SUVmean(delay) | 3.2 (1–9.9) | 0.048 | 4 (0.075–210) | 0.494 |
| MTV (delay) | 8.9 (2.1–3.7) | 0.003 | - | 0.537 |
| TLG (delay) | 9.8 (2.5–38) | 0.001 | - | 0.717 |
| Rad_score (dual) | 3.2 (2.1–5) | <0.001 | 4.1 (2.1–8.1) | <0.001 |
ECOG, eastern cooperative oncology group; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19–9; dose, radiotherapy dose (Gy); MTV, metabolic tumor volume; TLG, total lesion glycolysis.