| Literature DB >> 36046035 |
Jinjin Liu1, Xuchao Wang2, Mengshang Hu1, Yan Zheng1, Lin Zhu1, Wei Wang1, Jisu Hu3, Zhiyong Zhou3, Yakang Dai3, Fenglin Dong1.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a radiomics nomogram that could incorporate clinicopathological characteristics and ultrasound (US)-based radiomics signature to non-invasively predict Ki-67 expression level in patients with breast cancer (BC) preoperatively.Entities:
Keywords: Ki-67 expression; breast neoplasms; radiomics nomogram; shear wave elastography (SWE); ultrasonography
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046035 PMCID: PMC9421073 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.963925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Recruitment pathway for BC patients selection.
Comparison of descriptive characteristics of the training and validation cohorts.
| Characteristic | Training cohort (n=230) | Validation cohort (n=98) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 52.61 ± 12.41 | 53.90 ± 12.97 | 0.396 |
|
| 160 (69.6%) | 63 (64.3%) | 0.348 |
|
| |||
| Premenopausal | 96 (41.7%) | 44 (44.9%) | 0.597 |
| Postmenopausal | 134 (58.3%) | 54 (55.1%) | |
|
| |||
| <2cm | 99 (43.0%) | 53 (54.1%) | 0.067 |
| ≥2cm | 131 (57.0%) | 45 (45.9%) | |
|
| |||
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 23 (10.0%) | 11 (11.2%) | 0.422 |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 189 (82.2%) | 76 (77.6%) | |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma | 5 (2.2%) | 1 (1.0%) | |
| Others | 13 (5.7%) | 10 (10.2%) | |
|
| |||
| No | 75 (32.6%) | 34 (34.7%) | 0.714 |
| Yes | 155 (67.4%) | 64 (65.3%) | |
|
| |||
| 3 | 1 (0.4%) | 2 (2.0%) | 0.279 |
| 4A | 56 (24.3%) | 28 (28.6%) | |
| 4B | 76 (33.0%) | 34 (34.7%) | |
| 4C | 62 (27.0%) | 26 (26.5%) | |
| 5 | 35 (15.3%) | 8 (8.2%) | |
|
| |||
| LN-negative | 150 (65.3%) | 76 (77.6%) | 0.027 |
| LN-positive | 80 (34.7%) | 22 (22.4%) |
MTD, maximum tumor diameter; LN, lymph node.
Characteristics associated with Ki-67 expression status in training and validation cohorts.
| Training cohort(n=230) | Validation cohort(n=98) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression | High expression |
| Low expression | High expression |
| |
|
| 70 | 160 | 35 | 63 | ||
|
| 54.71 ± 12.03 | 51.69 ± 12.50 | 0.089 | 54.06 ± 15.72 | 53.81 ± 11.29 | 0.935 |
|
| ||||||
| Premenopausal | 28 (40.0%) | 68 (42.5%) | 0.724 | 16 (45.7%) | 28 (44.4%) | 0.904 |
| Postmenopausal | 42 (60.0%) | 92 (57.5%) | 19 (54.3%) | 35 (55.6%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| <2cm | 50 (71.4%) | 49 (30.6%) | <0.001 | 28 (80.0%) | 25 (39.7%) | <0.001 |
| ≥2cm | 20 (28.6%) | 111 (69.4%) | 7 (20.0%) | 38 (60.3%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 17 (24.3%) | 6 (3.8%) | <0.001 | 6 (17.1%) | 5 (7.9%) | 0.031 |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 48 (68.6%) | 141 (88.1%) | 22 (62.9%) | 54 (85.7%) | ||
| Invasive lobular carcinoma | 1 (1.4%) | 4 (2.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
| Others | 4 (5.7%) | 9 (5.6%) | 7 (20.0%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| No | 52 (74.3%) | 23 (14.4%) | <0.001 | 26 (74.3%) | 8 (12.7%) | <0.001 |
| Yes | 18 (25.7%) | 137 (85.6%) | 9 (25.7%) | 55 (87.3%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| 3 | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | <0.001 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.2%) | 0.120 |
| 4A | 28 (40.0%) | 28 (17.5%) | 15 (42.8%) | 13 (20.6%) | ||
| 4B | 25 (35.7%) | 51 (31.9%) | 11 (31.4%) | 23 (36.5%) | ||
| 4C | 14 (20.0%) | 48 (30.0%) | 8 (22.9%) | 18 (28.6%) | ||
| 5 | 2 (2.9%) | 33 (20.6%) | 1 (2.9%) | 7 (11.1%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| LN-negative | 64 (91.4%) | 86 (53.7%) | <0.001 | 33 (94.3%) | 43 (68.3%) | 0.003 |
| LN-positive | 6 (8.6%) | 74 (46.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | 20 (31.7%) | ||
MTD, maximum tumor diameter; LN, lymph node.
Multivariate analysis of clinic-radiological characteristics in training cohort.
| Characteristic | P value | β | OR value | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US-reported MTD | 0.005 | 1.097 | 8.015 | 1.402~6.404 |
| Stiff rim sign | <0.001 | 2.644 | 46.302 | 6.568~30.116 |
| US-reported LN status | <0.001 | 1.849 | 13.100 | 2.334~17.287 |
| constant | <0.001 | -1.665 | 23.748 |
MTD, maximum tumor diameter; LN, lymph node.
Figure 2Radiomics feature selection using LASSO logistic regression in the training cohort.
Figure 3In LASSO regression, a coefficient profile plot was drawn and resulted in 8 radiomic features with nonzero coefficients.
Figure 4A radiomics nomogram was developed with stiff rim sign, US-reported MTD, US-reported LN status and Rad-score for the prediction of Ki-67 expression status in the training cohort.
AUC comparison of three prediction models.
| Model | Training cohort | Validation cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z value | P value | Z value | P value | |
| Clinic-radiological model VS radiomics signature | 2.064 | 0.039 | 2.293 | 0.022 |
| Clinic-radiological model VS Radiomics nomogram | -2.139 | 0.032 | 1.48 | 0.139 |
| Radiomics signature VS Radiomics nomogram | -3.487 | 0.0005 | 3.627 | <0.001 |
Figure 5(A, B) showed the comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves between the clinic-radiological model, radiomics signature and radiomics nomogram in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Calibration curves of the radiomics nomogram in the training cohort (C) and validation cohort (D). The 45 straight line represents a perfect match between the actual (Y-axis) and nomogram-predicted probabilities (X-axis), and the dotted lines represent the predictive performance of the nomogram.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis for each model in predicting Ki-67 expression status for BC patients.