| Literature DB >> 36038819 |
Qi Feng1, Jiangtao Liang2, Luoyu Wang1, Xiuhong Ge1, Zhongxiang Ding3,4, Haihong Wu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is of great value in treatment and prognosis. We explored whether a positron emission tomography/ magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) based comprehensive model of radiomics features and semiquantitative parameters was useful for clinical evaluation of NPC staging.Entities:
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Positron emission tomography; Radiomics; Semiquantitative parameters
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36038819 PMCID: PMC9422112 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00883-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 2.795
Patient characteristics in the training group and the testing group
| Training group | Testing group | Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 52.23 ± 12.33 | 50.40 ± 13.68 | -0.658 | 0.512 |
| Gender, Male: Female | 56: 14 | 22: 8 | 0.544* | 0.461* |
| SUVmax | 10.91 ± 4.76 | 10.03 ± 3.78 | -0.899 | 0.371 |
| MTV | 9.87 ± 7.38 | 11.31 ± 9.29 | 0.824 | 0.412 |
| TLG | 51.06 ± 46.95 | 57.61 ± 41.46 | 0.661 | 0.510 |
| Clinical staging, I: II: III: IV | 5: 14: 38: 13 | 2: 6: 19: 3 | 1.250* | 0.767* |
The measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical methods: t-test and chi-square test (*)
Fig. 1A and B are of the LASSO process. The vertical line is drawn at the optimal λ value using the minimum criterion and the standard error of the minimum criterion. Put the optimal λ value into B to get the best parameters. C Shows the remaining radiomics features after two steps of feature selection
Fig. 2ROC curves of the radiomics model (blue line), metabolic parameter model (green line), and the combined model (red line). A ROC curves of training cohort. B ROC curves of testing cohort
Other evaluation parameters of training and testing groups in the three models
| Radiomics | Semiquantitative parameters | Nomogram | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Testing | Training | Testing | Training | Testing | |
| Accuracy | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.66 | 0.82 | 0.90 |
| Sensitivity | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.52 | 0.78 | 1.00 |
| Specificity | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.73 |
| Positive predictive value | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.86 |
| Negative predictive value | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.44 | 0.62 | 1.00 |
Fig. 3Nomogram for predicting NPC staging. For each patient, the values of the two semiquantitative parameters (SUVmax and TLG) and the radscore are evaluated by projecting them onto the topmost point scale. Add up the three variables and project the total score down to the bottom total points line to determine the risk of advanced NPC probabilities
Fig. 4Calibration curve of the radiomics nomogram in training data (A) and testing data (B). The calibration curve describes the alignment between the model predicted probability of advanced NPC and the observed advanced results. The Y-axis represents the actual rate of advanced NPC. The X-axis is the advanced risk of the prediction. The dotted line on the diagonal represents the precise prediction of the ideal model. The other dotted line represents the apparent performance of nomogram, and the solid line represents the bias-corrected performance of nomogram. The higher the fit between the solid line and the diagonal dotted line, the better the prediction
Fig. 5The decision curves containing nomogram, radiomics, and semiquantitative parameters. The decision curve showed that if the high risk threshold of a patient or doctor is > 15%, using the nomogram to predict advanced NPC adds more benefit than the treat-all-patients or the treat-none