| Literature DB >> 36158700 |
Caiyun Fang1,2, Juntao Zhang3, Jizhen Li4, Hui Shang1,2, Kejian Li1,2, Tianyu Jiao1,2, Di Yin1, Fuyan Li5, Yi Cui6, Qingshi Zeng1.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and validate a clinical-radiomics nomogram based on radiomics features and clinical risk factors for identification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in patients with breast cancer (BC).Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; magnetic resonance imaging; nomogram; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158700 PMCID: PMC9490879 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.922185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Patient recruitment routes in center I and external centers II-III. n I, number of patients in center I; n II-III, total number of patients in external centers II-III.
Figure 2(A-F): An example of manual segmentation in breast cancer. (A, B): tumor area (green in fat suppression T2WI image); (C, D): tumor area (orange in DWI image, b = 1,000 s/mm2); (E, F): tumor area (red in DCE-MR image).
Patient characteristics in the training and validation cohorts (mean ± standard deviation).
| Clinicopathological features | Training group (N = 115) |
| Internal validation group (N = 49) |
| External validation group (N = 71) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HER2- (n = 84) | HER2+ (n = 31) | HER2- (n = 36) | HER2+ (n = 13) | HER2- (n = 48) | HER2+ (n = 23) | ||||
| Age (years, mean± SD) | 49.5 ± 10.5 | 52.5 ± 8.9 | 0.163 | 52.6 ± 11.4 | 50.3 ± 7.5 | 0.494 | 49.8 ± 12.4 | 52.4 ± 11.3 | 0.396 |
| Diameter (cm, mean± SD) | 2.1 ± 0.9 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 0.658 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 1.1 | 0.000 | 1.9 ± 0.8 | 2.4 ± 0.8 | 0.034 |
| ER | 0.003 | 1.000 | 0.034 | ||||||
| Positive | 72 (85.7%) | 18 (58.1%) | 34 (94.4%) | 12 (92.3%) | 37 (77.1%) | 12 (52.2%) | |||
| Negative | 12 (14.3%) | 13 (41.9%) | 2 (5.6%) | 1 (7.7%) | 11 (22.9%) | 11 (47.8%) | |||
| PR | 0.001 | 0.352 | 0.000 | ||||||
| Positive | 68 (81.0%) | 15 (48.4%) | 31 (86.1%) | 9 (69.2%) | 38 (79.2%) | 8 (34.8%) | |||
| Negative | 16 (19.0%) | 16 (51.6%) | 5 (13.9%) | 4 (30.8%) | 10 (20.8%) | 15 (65.2%) | |||
| Ki-67 | 0.001 | 0.040 | 0.038 | ||||||
| ≥14% | 48 (57.1%) | 28 (90.3%) | 20 (55.6%) | 12 (92.3%) | 40 (83.3%) | 23 (100%) | |||
| <14% | 36 (42.9%) | 3 (9.7%) | 16 (44.4%) | 1 (7.7%) | 8 (16.7%) | 0 | |||
| Pathological ALN metastasis | 0.751 | 0.176 | 0.399 | ||||||
| Positive | 28 (33.3%) | 12 (38.7%) | 10 (27.8%) | 7 (53.8%) | 22 (45.8%) | 13 (56.5%) | |||
| Negative | 56 (66.7%) | 19 (61.3%) | 26 (72.2%) | 6 (46.2%) | 26 (54.2%) | 10 (43.5%) | |||
| Histological grade | 0.210 | 0.289 | 0.017 | ||||||
| I | 17 (20.2%) | 2 (6.5%) | 9 (25.0%) | 0 | 2 (4.2%) | 0 | |||
| II | 51 (60.7%) | 22 (71.0%) | 22 (61.1%) | 8 (61.5%) | 38 (79.2%) | 12 (52.2%) | |||
| III | 16 (19.0%) | 7 (22.6%) | 5 (13.9%) | 5 (38.5%) | 8 (16.7%) | 11 (47.8%) | |||
| Rad-score(median) | -1.3[-0.9, -0.1] | -0.7[-0.9, -0.1] | <1e-04 | -1.1[-1.7, -0.8] | -0.6[-0.9, -0.3] | 0.002 | -1.1[-1.7, -0.8] | -0.9[-1.2, -0.8] | 0.010 |
ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2; ALN, axillary lymph node.
Figure 3(A, B): Texture feature selection using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. (A): Optimal tuning parameters (λ) in the LASSO model binomial deviation diagram. (B): LASSO coefficient profile of the features.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for HER2.
| Variable | Univariate logistic analysis | Multivariate logistic analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| |
| ER | 0.23 [0.09, 0.59] | 0.002 | NA | NA |
| PR | 0.22 [0.09, 0.53] | 0.000 | 0.37 [0.13, 1.07] | 0.067 |
| Ki-67 | 7.00 [1.97, 24.84] | 0.002 | 4.12 [0.98, 17.37] | 0.053 |
| Rad-score | 11.85 [4.25, 33.02] | <1e-04 | 9.88 [3.43, 28.43] | <1e-04 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NA, not available; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2.
Figure 4(A-C): The receiver operating characteristic curves of nomogram, radiomic signatures, and clinical risk factors for identifying the HER2 status of breast cancer were presented in the training group (A), the internal validation group (B) and the external validation group (C), respectively. The nomogram obtained the highest area under the curve (AUC).
Figure 5A clinical-radiomics nomogram. The nomogram was composed of Rad-score, PR, and Ki-67. PR: 0 = negative, 1 = positive; Ki-67: 0 = low expression, 1 = high expression.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis of clinical application evaluation of the nomogram. The vertical axis displays standardized net benefit. The two horizontal axes show the corresponding relationship between risk threshold and cost-benefit ratio. Compared with the radiomics signature (gray line) and clinical characteristics (yellow line), the nomogram (blue line) achieved the highest net benefit.