| Literature DB >> 35976518 |
Wenpeng Huang1, Liming Li1, Siyun Liu2, Yunjin Chen1, Chenchen Liu1, Yijing Han1, Fang Wang1, Pengchao Zhan1, Huiping Zhao1, Jing Li3, Jianbo Gao4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop and validate CT-based models to predict pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).Entities:
Keywords: Adenocarcinoma; Esophagogastric junction; Neoadjuvant therapy; Response evaluation; X-ray computed tomography
Year: 2022 PMID: 35976518 PMCID: PMC9385906 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01273-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insights Imaging ISSN: 1869-4101
Clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients in the training group and the external validation group
| Training group ( | Validation group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 49 | 24 | 0.993 |
| Female | 11 | 8 | |
| Age (years) | 60.60 ± 9.33 | 62.50 ± 5.86 | 0.340 |
| Serum CA125 (Elevated) | 6 | 1 | 0.300 |
| Serum CA199 (Elevated) | 8 | 5 | 0.241 |
| Serum CEA (Elevated) | 18 | 9 | 0.112 |
| Serum albumin (Reduced) | 29 | 1 | 0.315 |
| I–II | 32 | 10 | 0.010* |
| III–IV | 28 | 22 | |
| Tumor thickness (cm) | |||
| 18.19 ± 5.75 | 15.39 ± 5.14 | 0.036* | |
| Low | 25 | 20 | 0.087 |
| Middle-high | 35 | 12 | |
| 4 | 31 | 21 | 0.122 |
| 2–3 | 29 | 11 | |
| 0–1 | 38 | 17 | 0.578 |
| 2–3 | 22 | 15 | |
| 0 | 19 | 4 | 0.218 |
| 1 | 12 | 10 | |
| 2 | 15 | 9 | |
| 3 | 14 | 9 | |
NAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy, TRG tumor regression grade, CA carbohydrate antigen, CA199 (normal range 0.01–37 U/mL), CA125 (normal range 0.01–35 U/mL), CEA carcinoembryonic antigen (normal range 0–5 ng/mL)
*Statistically significant level: p < 0.05
Fig. 1Hypofractionated adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) in a 63-year-old man. A CT venous phase axial image before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), Borrmann staging type I, thickest tumor diameter of 3.4 cm. B Schematic diagram of region of interest (ROI) segmentation on ITK-SNAP software. C CT venous phase axial image after NAC, lesion near disappearance, and insignificant gastric wall thickening. D Postoperative pathological images; fibrous tissue hyperplasia with chronic inflammatory cell infiltration was seen; no tumor cells remained; and tumor regression was obvious (HE × 200). Hypofractionated AEG in a 36 years old man. E CT venous phase axial image before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), Borrmann staging type III, thickest tumor diameter of 3.2 cm. F Schematic diagram of region of interest (ROI) segmentation on ITK-SNAP software. G CT venous phase axial image after NAC, significantly smaller lesions with reduced enhancement. H Postoperative pathological images showed more chronic inflammatory cell infiltration in the mucosal and lamina propria layers with focal fibrosis (HE × 200)
Fig. 2The ranked importance of GBDT selected features for each independent model. A Arterial-phase radiomics features. B The venous-phase radiomics features. C The clinical factors
Efficacy of different models in the training group and the external validation group for predicting pathological complete response (pCR)
| Model | Arterial model | Venous model | Clinical model | Arterial–venous combined model | Arterial–clinical combined model | Venous–clinical combined model | Arterial–venous–clinical combined model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | 0.736 | 0.751 | 0.753 | 0.768 | 0.836 | 0.818 | 0.838 |
| 95%CI | 0.607–0.865 | 0.614–0.888 | 0.622–0.884 | 0.639–0.896 | 0.728–0.943 | 0.708–0.927 | 0.736–0.941 |
| Threshold | 0.510 | 0.856 | 0.351 | 0.667 | 0.332 | 0.543 | 0.160 |
| Specificity | 0.610 | 0.829 | 0.683 | 0.927 | 0.805 | 0.878 | 0.659 |
| Sensitivity | 0.789 | 0.632 | 0.789 | 0.474 | 0.789 | 0.632 | 0.895 |
| Accuracy | 0.667 | 0.767 | 0.717 | 0.783 | 0.800 | 0.800 | 0.733 |
| NPV | 0.862 | 0.829 | 0.875 | 0.792 | 0.892 | 0.837 | 0.931 |
| PPV | 0.484 | 0.632 | 0.536 | 0.750 | 0.652 | 0.706 | 0.548 |
| AUC | 0.750 | 0.768 | 0.848 | 0.795 | 0.893 | 0.884 | 0.902 |
| 95%CI | 0.535–0.965 | 0.489–1 | 0.710–0.987 | 0.560–1 | 0.780–1 | 0.762–1 | 0.792–1 |
| Threshold | 0.510 | 0.856 | 0.351 | 0.667 | 0.332 | 0.543 | 0.160 |
| Specificity | 0.536 | 0.750 | 0.857 | 0.857 | 0.786 | 0.893 | 0.500 |
| Sensitivity | 0.750 | 0.750 | 0.750 | 0.500 | 1 | 0.500 | 1 |
| Accuracy | 0.562 | 0.750 | 0.844 | 0.812 | 0.812 | 0.844 | 0.562 |
| NPV | 0.938 | 0.955 | 0.960 | 0.923 | 1 | 0.926 | 1 |
| PPV | 0.188 | 0.300 | 0.429 | 0.333 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.222 |
Fig. 3The performance of different models. A, B ROC curves of different models for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) in the training group (A) and external validation group (B). C, D Calibration curves of different models predicting pCR in the training group (C) and external validation group (D). The 45-degree sloping line indicates the ideal calibration, and the closer the model calibration curve is to the ideal calibration line, the better the agreement between the model predicted probability and the actual probability. E, F Decision curves of different prediction models in the training group (E) and external validation group (F). The X-axis is the threshold probability range, and the Y-axis is the net benefit. The black line labeled "NONE" indicates that no lesions are assumed to be pCR, and the gray line labeled "ALL" indicates that all lesions are assumed to be pCR. The further away from both the black and gray lines, the higher the net benefit of the model compared to performance utilizing the "NONE" and "ALL" assumptions. When comparing the decision curves of different models within the same range of threshold probability, the larger the area under the curve for the same threshold probability interval, the higher the net benefit of the model at that threshold probability