| Literature DB >> 35982975 |
Hong Yang1, Lin Wang2, Guoliang Shao1, Baiqiang Dong3, Fang Wang1, Yuguo Wei4, Pu Li5, Haiyan Chen1, Wujie Chen1, Yao Zheng1, Yiwei He1, Yankun Zhao1, Xianghui Du6, Xiaojiang Sun6, Zhun Wang6, Yuezhen Wang6, Xia Zhou6, Xiaojing Lai6, Wei Feng6, Liming Shen6, Guoqing Qiu6, Yongling Ji6, Jianxiang Chen6, Youhua Jiang7, Jinshi Liu7, Jian Zeng7, Changchun Wang7, Qiang Zhao7, Xun Yang7, Xiao Hu6, Honglian Ma6, Qixun Chen7, Ming Chen3, Haitao Jiang1, Yujin Xu6.
Abstract
Purpose: To accurately assess disease progression after Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) of early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), a combined predictive model based on pre-treatment CT radiomics features and clinical factors was established.Entities:
Keywords: non-small cell lung cancer; predictive model; progression; radiomics; stereotactic ablative radiotherapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35982975 PMCID: PMC9380646 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.967360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The framework for the radiomics workflow. (A, B) Medical imaging segmentation; (C, D) Feature extraction and selection; (E, F) The ROC curves and nomogram; (G, H) Hosmer-Lemeshow Test and the decision curve.
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohorts.
| Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-risk (n=21) | Low-risk (n=47) |
| High-risk (n=8) | Low-risk (n=20) |
| |
| Gender (%) | ||||||
| Female | 4 (19.0) | 12 (25.5) | 2 (25.0) | 9 (45.0) | ||
| Male | 17 (81.0) | 35 (74.5) | 0.7849 | 6 (75.0) | 11 (55.0) | 0.58188 |
| Age, years (mean ± SD) | 74.5 (6.7) | 73.6 (7.9) | 0.6588 | 72.5 (6.6) | 72 (9.2) | 0.88141 |
| KPS | 88.8 (8.6) | 89.8 (6.4) | 0.6034 | 90 (7.6) | 89.5 (7.6) | 0.87475 |
| Charlson | 0.9 (1.2) | 0.7 (1) | 0.5613 | 1.6 (1.5) | 0.6 (0.9) | 0.02219* |
| Diameter, cm (mean ± SD) | 2.3 (0.8) | 2.5 (0.8) | 0.2269 | 2.1 (0.7) | 2.4 (0.9) | 0.47013 |
| Histology | ||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 9 (42.9) | 25 (53.2) | 2 (25.0) | 11 (55.0) | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 10 (47.6) | 13 (27.7) | 3 (37.5) | 4 (20.0) | ||
| Not otherwise Specified | 2 (9.5) | 9 (19.1) | 0.2404 | 3 (37.5) | 5 (25.0) | 0.34642 |
| T stage | ||||||
| 1 | 16 (76.2) | 34 (72.3) | 4 (50.0) | 17 (85.0) | ||
| 2 | 5 (23.8) | 12 (25.5) | 4 (50.0) | 3 (15.0) | ||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.1) | 0.7814 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | NA |
| Tumor location | ||||||
| Central | 2 (9.5) | 3 (6.4) | 1 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Peripheral | 19 (90.5) | 44 (93.6) | 1.0000 | 7 (87.5) | 20 (100.0) | 0.62906 |
| Involved lobe | ||||||
| RLL/RML | 8 (38.1) | 15 (31.9) | 2 (25.0) | 8 (40.0) | ||
| LLL | 8 (38.1) | 11 (23.4) | 3 (37.5) | 2 (10.0) | ||
| LUL | 2 (9.5) | 7 (14.9) | 2 (25.0) | 4 (20.0) | ||
| RUL | 3 (14.3) | 14 (29.8) | 0.3922 | 1 (12.5) | 6 (30.0) | 0.31476 |
| Pulmonary function | ||||||
| Normal | 3 (14.3) | 4 (8.5) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (5.0) | ||
| Mild | 1 (4.8) | 8 (17.0) | 1 (12.5) | 4 (20.0) | ||
| Moderate | 11 (52.4) | 18 (38.3) | 3 (37.5) | 5 (25.0) | ||
| Severe | 6 (28.6) | 17 (36.2) | 0.3853 | 3 (37.5) | 10 (50.0) | 0.76868 |
| Smoker | ||||||
| No | 6 (28.6) | 21 (44.7) | 4 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) | ||
| Yes | 15 (71.4) | 26 (55.3) | 0.3241 | 4 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) | 1.00000 |
| BED | 98.1 (14.5) | 98.5 (12.5) | 0.9062 | 86.4 (14.8) | 93.7 (19.3) | 0.33499 |
| BED≥100 | ||||||
| No | 7 (33.3) | 18 (38.3) | 4 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) | ||
| Yes | 14 (66.7) | 29 (61.7) | 0.9044 | 4 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) | 1.00000 |
| Type | ||||||
| 1 | 10 (47.6) | 34 (72.3) | 5 (62.5) | 14 (70.0) | ||
| 2 | 3 (14.3) | 7 (14.9) | 2 (25.0) | 3 (15.0) | ||
| 3 | 8 (38.1) | 6 (12.8) | 0.0524 | 1 (12.5) | 3 (15.0) | 0.82186 |
KPS, karnofsky performance status; RLL, right lower lobe; RML, right middle lobe; LLL, left lower lobe; LUL, left upper lobe; RUL, right upper lobe; BED, biologically effective dose; Type, the type of peritumoral radiation-induced lung injury. *p< 0.05, expressive significance.
Figure 2Textural feature selection using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) binary logistic regression. (A) Tuning parameters(λ) for the LASSO model were selected by 10-fold cross-validation using the minimum criteria. Partial likelihood deviance was plotted against log(λ). The dotted vertical lines correspond to the optimal values according to the minimum criteria and 1-SE criterion. The 11 features with the smallest binomial deviance were selected. (B) A feature coefficient convergence graph for filtering features using 10-fold cross-validation in the LASSO regression model. (C) LASSO coefficient profiles of texture features. Vertical lines correspond to the values selected by 10-fold cross-validation of the log(λ) sequence; the 11 nonzero coefficients are indicated.
Figure 3Box plot showing the Radscore distribution of high and low risk group for disease progression on training and validation cohorts. p-value from Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test (A, B). Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves (training and validation cohorts) (C, D). The prediction performance of the ROC curves for radiomics signature for training and validation cohorts.
Figure 4Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the clinical, radiomics, and combined model used to discriminate between the high and low risk of disease progression of lung cancer treated with SABR in the training and validation cohorts (A, B). Radiomics nomogram (C) was used to discriminate the high and low risk of disease progression in lung cancer patients treated with SABR. The nomogram was based on the training cohort; the Radscore was shown. Initially, vertical lines were drawn at the Radscore values to determine the values of the points. The final point value was the sum of those of the two points. Finally, a vertical line was drawn at the total point value to determine the risk of disease progression of lung cancer treated with SABR.
Predictive performance of three prediction models for training and validation cohort.
| Training cohort | AUC | 95%CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical model | 0.64 | 0.51-0.78 | 0.872 | 0.381 | 0.721 | 0.759 | 0.571 |
| Radiomics model | 0.88 | 0.80-0.96 | 0.830 | 0.810 | 0.824 | 0.907 | 0.680 |
| Combined model | 0.88 | 0.81-0.96 | 0.971 | 0.606 | 0.794 | 0.723 | 0.952 |
| Validation cohort | AUC | 95%CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV |
| Clinical model | 0.53 | 0.32-0.73 | 0.850 | 0.125 | 0.643 | 0.708 | 0.250 |
| Radiomics model | 0.80 | 0.62-0.98 | 0.750 | 0.625 | 0.714 | 0.833 | 0.500 |
| Combined model | 0.81 | 0.62-0.99 | 0.864 | 0.833 | 0.857 | 0.950 | 0.625 |
AUC, the area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Comparison of ROC curves with DeLong test in the training and validation cohort.
| Clinical vs Radiomics | Clinical vs Combined | Radiomics vs Combined | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z |
| Z |
| Z |
| |
| Training Cohort | 2.87 | 0.004* | 3.48 | <0.001* | 0.093 | 0.926 |
| Validation Cohort | 2.08 | 0.038* | 2.35 | 0.019* | 0.24 | 0.812 |
*p< 0.05, expressive significance.
Figure 5Hosmer-Lemeshow Test of the nomogram of the training (A) and validation (B) cohorts. The diagonal dotted lines represent the ideal predictions; the solid lines represent nomogram performance. A closer fit to the diagonal line indicates that the model matches better.
Figure 6Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) results for the three discrimination models. The Y-axis represents the net benefit, calculated by summing the benefits (true positives) and subtracting the weighted harm (i.e., deleting false positives). The optimal method for feature selection is that with the highest net benefit.
Figure 7The type of peritumoral radiation-induced lung injury. Type I, female, 51 years, adenocarcinoma in the right lung, DT40GY/5F; (A) pre-treatment: a nodule with blurred boundary and spicule sign; (B) one month after treatment: the tumor shrunk and there was a surrounding ground-glass opacity; (C) three months after treatment: the tumor area showed diffuse consolidation and was indistinguishable from the tumor; (D) six months after treatment: the imaging findings were similar to (C). Type II, female, 79 years, adenocarcinoma in right lung, DT55GY/5F; (E) pre-treatment: a nodule with a clear boundary and shallow lobed; (F)one month after treatment: the tumor has shrunk a little, no ground glass opacity surrounding it; (G) four months after treatment: there was no significant change; (H) six months after treatment: the tumor was surrounded by ground-glass opacity, more than 1/2. Type III, male,70 years, adenocarcinoma in left lung, DT50GY/5F; (I) pre-treatment: a nodule with a clear boundary and shallow lobed; (J) two months after treatment: there was no significant change; (K) four months after treatment: there was no significant change; (L) six months after treatment: the tumor was surrounded by ground-glass opacity, less than 1/2.