| Literature DB >> 36158664 |
Yawen Zheng1, Fang Wang2, Wenxia Zhang1, Yongmei Li3, Bo Yang2,4, Xingsheng Yang1, Taotao Dong1.
Abstract
Purpose: High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is aggressive and has a high mortality rate. A Vit-based deep learning model was developed to predicting overall survival in HGSOC patients based on preoperative CT images.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; nomogram; ovarian cancer; personalized model; survival prediction
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158664 PMCID: PMC9504666 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.986089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The framework of the proposed Vit-based model. For each patient, being fed tumor images, the deep learning model output an image score which represent the patient’s survival probability. This framework includes two parts: the ViT part (A) learned features and the RNN part (B) integrated the feature representation for each patient and reported the final image score.
Clinical characteristics of patients in training and validation cohorts.
| Total N = 734 | Training cohort N = 550 | Validation cohort N = 184 | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis, mean (SD), y | 52.36 (15.18) | 52.59 (15.24) | 51.75 (15.08) | 0.54 |
| Follow-up time, median (IQR), m | 35.6 (20.7, 58.6) | 35.0 (20.0, 57.4) | 36.9 (21.8, 61.1) | |
| Tumor diameter, mean (SD), mm | 10.10 (6.04) | 10.23 (6.10) | 9.73 (5.87) | 0.36 |
| CA-125, mean (SD) , U/ml | 1019.3 (1381.1) | 1042.7 (1437.9) | 949.5 (1196.2) | 0.90 |
| Tumor location, No. (%) | ||||
| Unilateral | 307 (41.83) | 220 (40.00) | 87 (47.28) | 0.10 |
| Bilateral | 427 (58.17) | 330 (60.00) | 97 (52.72) | |
| FIGO stage, No. (%) | ||||
| I | 209 (28.47) | 155 (28.18) | 54 (29.35) | 0.94 |
| II | 77 (10.49) | 59 (10.73) | 18 (9.78) | |
| III | 386 (52.59) | 291 (52.91) | 95 (51.63) | |
| IV | 62 (8.44) | 45 (8.18) | 17 (9.24) | |
| Vital status , No. (%) | ||||
| Alive | 544 (74.11) | 412 (74.91) | 132 (71.74) | 0.45 |
| Dead | 190 (25.89) | 138 (25.09) | 52 (28.26) | |
Figure 2Correlation matrix of clinical characteristics and the image score in training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B). Values in this figure indicated the correlation coefficient of two corresponding variables. The colour and the size of the circles represent the strength of the correlation. Lack of color means no correlation.
Figure 3The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) in training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B). IS, image score; CC, clinical characters.
Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Overall Survival in training and validation cohorts.
| Univariable Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training cohort | Validation cohort | |||
| HR (95%CI) | p-value | HR (95%CI) | p-value | |
| Age at diagnosis | 1.03 (1.01-1.04) | < 0.001 | 1.02 (1.00-1.03) | 0.13 |
| Tumor diameter | 0.97 (0.94-1.0) | 0.04 | 0.97 (0.93-1.02) | 0.289 |
| CA-125 | 1 (1-1) | 0.04 | 1 (1-1) | < 0.001 |
| Side | ||||
| Unilateral | 1.0 (referent) | referent | 1.0 (referent) | referent |
| Bilateral | 1.65 (1.14-2.38) | 0.008 | 2.37 (1.28-4.38) | 0.006 |
| FIGO stage | ||||
| I | 1.0 (referent) | referent | 1.0 (referent) | referent |
| II | 4.05 (2.06-7.97) | < 0.001 | 2.86 (1.35-6.09) | 0.006 |
| III | 5.34 (3.13-9.12) | < 0.001 | 4.34 (2.48-7.60) | < 0.001 |
| IV | 6.54 (3.45-12.42) | < 0.001 | 5.25 (2.63-10.48) | < 0.001 |
| Image_score | 7.8 (3.83-15.88) | < 0.001 | 6.84 (3.07-15.27) | < 0.001 |
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age at diagnosis | 1.01 (1.00-1.03) | 0.008 | 1.02 (0.99-1.05) | 0.12 |
| Tumor diameter | 1.00 (0.96-1.03) | 0.85 | 0.99 (0.94-1.04) | 0.64 |
| CA-125 | 1.00 (1.00-1.00) | 0.86 | 1.00 (1.00-1.00) | 0.02 |
| Side, No.(%) | ||||
| Unilateral | 1.0 (referent) | referent | 1.0 (referent) | referent |
| Bilateral | 0.84 (0.06-1.27) | 0.41 | 0.91 (0.45-1.81) | 0.78 |
| FIGO stage, No.(%) | ||||
| I | 1.0 (referent) | referent | 1.0 (referent) | referent |
| II | 3.50 (1.75-7.00) | < 0.001 | 1.23 (0.24-6.29) | 0.81 |
| III | 5.52 (3.03-10.04) | < 0.001 | 3.38 (1.30-8.83) | 0.01 |
| IV | 5.60 (2.72-11.50) | < 0.001 | 4.65 (1.38-15.73) | 0.01 |
| Image_score | 9.03 (4.38-18.65) | < 0.001 | 9.59 (4.20-21.92) | < 0.001 |
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to tumor stages in training cohort (A) and validation cohort (C). Kaplan-Meier survival curves based on risk stratification according to image score in training cohort (B) and validation cohort (D). The shadow indicates the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 5Generation and evaluation of nomogram. (A) A constructed nomogram for prognostic prediction of 3-year and 5-year overall survival for patients with HGSOC. (B, C) Calibration curves of 3-year and 5-year OS for HGSOC patients in the training cohort. (D, E) Calibration curves of 3-year and 5-year OS for HGSOC patients in the validation cohort. Dash line represents the ideal agreement, the red dots are calculated by bootstrapping.