| Literature DB >> 36092317 |
Aiai Liu1, Bo Liu2, Xiaodong Duan3, Bo Yang4, Yiren Wang2, Ping Dong1, Ping Zhou1,5.
Abstract
Background: Liver cancer is affecting more and more people's health. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) has become a routine treatment option, but the prognosis of patients is not optimistic. Effectively prediction of prognosis can provide clinicians with an objective basis for patient prognosis and timely adjustment of treatment strategies, thus improving the quality of patient survival. However, the current prediction methods have some limitations. Therefore, this study aims to develop a radiomics nomogram for predicting survival after TACE in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); nomogram; radiomics; survival prediction; transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36092317 PMCID: PMC9459188 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-22-548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol ISSN: 2078-6891
Analysis of the clinical data of 70 patients who underwent TACE
| Variable | Estimate | SE | z | Wald | P | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Female | 0.547 | 0.374 | 1.463 | 2.14 | 0.143 | 1.728 (0.830–3.598) |
| Age, years | 0.039 | 0.014 | 2.707 | 7.326 | 0.007** | 1.040 (1.011–1.070) |
| <50 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 50–64 | 0.745 | 0.383 | 1.947 | 3.791 | 0.052 | 2.106 (0.995–4.459) |
| ≥65 | 1.029 | 0.422 | 2.435 | 5.93 | 0.015* | 2.798 (1.222–6.403) |
| ECOG | ||||||
| 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 1 | 0.936 | 0.321 | 2.919 | 8.522 | 0.004** | 2.551 (1.360–4.783) |
*P<0.05, **P<0.01. TACE, Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 1Construction of the radiomics signature. (A) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 851 radiomics features. Each horizontal line represents a feature selection result for a feature group. The coefficients (y-axis) were plotted against log (lambda) and 3 features with non-zero coefficients were selected to build the radiomics signature. (B) The LASSO regression model was applied for the radiomics features selected, and the gray dashed line on the left side of the horizontal coordinates represents the best lambda =0.191 selected in the LASSO model by the 10-fold cross-validation method. (C) The histogram shows the role of individual features that contributed to the developed signature. The features that contributed to the radiomics signature are plotted on the y-axis, with their coefficients in the LASSO analysis plotted on the x-axis. LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
Features selected for the radiomics model
| Selected radiomics feature | Coefficient |
|---|---|
| Feature 1: wavelet.HLL.ngtdm.Contrast | 1.683 |
| Feature 2: wavelet.HLL.glrlm.ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 2.538 |
| Feature 3: wavelet.HLL.gldm.SmallDependenceLowGrayLevelEmphasis | −0.158 |
Predictive performance of Rad-score for OS
| Total | High risk | Low risk | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rad-score | 9.00 (5.00–13.75) | 7.00 (4.00–11.00) | 12.00 (8.00–15.00) | <0.001 |
OS, overall survival; Rad-score, radiomics score.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival analysis according to the risk group. The OS of the high-risk group (blue curve) was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group (red curve). OS, overall survival.
Multivariate Cox regression analyses of the advanced HCC clinical factors for predicting OS
| Variable | Estimate | SE | z | Wald | P | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECOG | ||||||
| 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 1 | 0.773 | 0.33 | 2.342 | 5.486 | 0.019* | 2.167 (1.135–4.139) |
| Age, years | ||||||
| <50 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| ≥65 | 0.88 | 0.43 | 2.048 | 4.196 | 0.041* | 2.411 (1.039–5.595) |
| 50–64 | 0.556 | 0.394 | 1.41 | 1.989 | 0.158 | 1.744 (0.805–3.778) |
*P<0.05. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; OS, overall survival; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 3Developed nomograms and calibration curves for the nomograms. Development of the clinical (A) and radiomics (B) nomograms to predict OS in patients with advanced HCC after TACE, and the assessment of the model calibration capabilities. The value on each predictor scale in the graph corresponds to the score scale, and the total score corresponds to the risk prediction value. Calibration curves for clinical (C) and radiomics (D) nomograms. OS prediction is represented on the y-axis and the predicted result on the x-axis. The closer the fit of the diagonal dashed line to the solid line, the more accurate the prediction of the nomogram. ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Rad-score, radiomics score; OS, overall survival; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.
Figure 4The predictive performance of the model. (A) ROC curve of the clinical nomogram; (B) ROC curve of the Rad-score; (C) ROC curve of the radiomics nomogram. ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Predictive performance of the 3 models
| Clinical | Rad-score | Radiomics nomogram | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | 0.747 (0.627−0.866) | 0.772 (0.661−0.882) | 0.801 (0.693−0.909) |
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | 0.867 (0.725−0.945) | 0.644 (0.487−0.777) | 0.822 (0.674−0.915) |
| Specificity (95% CI) | 0.520 (0.318−0.717) | 0.800 (0.587−0.924) | 0.720 (0.674−0.915) |
Rad-score, radiomics score; AUC, area under the curve.
C-index of the 3 models
| Model | C-index |
|---|---|
| Clinical | 0.669 |
| Rad-score | 0.679 |
| Radiomics nomogram | 0.700 |
Rad-score, radiomics score.