| Literature DB >> 36212477 |
Shanhong Lu1,2,3,4, Hang Ling1,2,3, Juan Chen1, Lei Tan5, Yan Gao1, Huayu Li1, Pingqing Tan6, Donghai Huang1,2,3,4, Xin Zhang1,2,3,4, Yong Liu1,2,3,4, Yitao Mao7, Yuanzheng Qiu1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the role of pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics for the preoperative prediction of lymph node (LN) metastasis in patients with hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPSCC).Entities:
Keywords: hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; lymph node metastasis; magnetic resonance imaging; prediction model; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212477 PMCID: PMC9539826 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.936040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1The flowchart of this study. Tumor segmentation was performed on Contrast-enhanced axial T-1 weighted MR images. Experienced otolaryngology head and neck surgeon contoured the tumor areas on MRI slices. Radiomic features to quantify tumor intensity, shape and texture were extracted from original MR data. The LASSO regression was used to select features. The rad-score is constructed by a linear combination of selected features. The performance of the prediction model is assessed by the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the calibration curve. Radiomics nomogram was established and the calibration curve was used to evaluate the established model.
Characteristics of patients in training and validation cohorts.
| Characteristic | Training cohort | Validation cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNM (+)(73,68%) | LNM (-)(35,32%) | P | LNM (+)(31,66%) | LNM (-)(16,34%) | P | P# | |
|
| 59.44 ± 9.07 | 58.20 ± 9.62 | 0.516 | 59.35 ± 8.69 | 57.31 ± 11.00 | 0.490 | 0.817 |
|
| 0.912 | 0.112 | 0.122 | ||||
| Yes | 57 (52.8%) | 27 (25.0%) | 18 (38.3%) | 13 (27.7%) | |||
| No | 16 (14.8%) | 8 (7.4%) | 13 (27.7%) | 3 (6.4%) | |||
|
| 0.662 | 0.357 | 0.028 | ||||
| Yes | 57 (52.8%) | 26 (24.1%) | 17 (36.2%) | 11 (23.4%) | |||
| No | 16 (14.8%) | 9 (8.3%) | 14 (29.8%) | 5 (10.6%) | |||
|
| 0.659 | 0.496 | 0.125 | ||||
| Pyriform sinus | 51 (47.2%) | 22 (20.4%) | 23 (48.9%) | 14 (29.8%) | |||
| Posterior pharyngeal wall | 20 (18.5%) | 11 (10.2%) | 8 (17.0%) | 2 (4.3%) | |||
| Post cricoid | 2 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | – | – | |||
|
| < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.218 | ||||
| LNM (+) | 62 (57.4%) | 9 (8.3%) | 22 (46.8%) | 4 (8.5%) | |||
| LNM (-) | 11 (10.2%) | 26 (24.1%) | 9 (19.1%) | 12 (25.5%) | |||
P value was derived from the univariable association analyses between each of the clinical characteristics and lymph node status. P# represented the difference of each clinical characteristic between the training and validation cohorts.
LNM (+), positive lymph node metastasis; LNM (-), negative lymph node metastasis; MRI-reported LN status, Magnetic resonance imaging- reported lymph node status.
Figure 2Feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model. (A) Selection of tuning parameter (λ) in the LASSO model used 8-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve was plotted versus log(λ). Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values by using the minimum criteria and the 1 standard error of the minimum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). The optimal λ value of 0.019 with log (λ) of −3.988 was chosen. (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 530 selected features. A coefficient profile plot was produced against the log (λ) sequence. A vertical line was plotted at the optimal λ value, which resulted in 22 features with nonzero coefficients.
Extracted radiomics features and their coefficients.
| Features | Coefficient values |
|---|---|
| original_shape_Maximum3DDiameter | 2.93E-06 |
| original_glcma_Imc2b | -1.246123132 |
| wavelet_HLLc_glcma_MaximumProbability | 0.000126054 |
| wavelet_HLLc_glcma_InverseVariance | -0.757235275 |
| wavelet_HLLc_glcma_Autocorrelation | 1.59E-06 |
| wavelet_HLLc_glcma_Imc2b | -1.036721409 |
| wavelet_LHLd_glrlme_HighGrayLevelRunEmphasis | -0.000188753 |
| wavelet_LHHf_firstorder_Uniformity | -5.35E-09 |
| wavelet_LHHf_glcma_JointEntropy | 0.001410453 |
| wavelet_LHHf_glcma_Imc2b | -3.233742578 |
| wavelet_LHHf_glrlme_LongRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 1.060581029 |
| wavelet_LLHg_firstorder_Median | -0.021394616 |
| wavelet_HLHh_glcma_JointEntropy | -0.000723601 |
| wavelet_HLHi_glcma_Correlation | 2.740702223 |
| wavelet_HHHj_firstorder_10Percentile | 1.70E-08 |
| wavelet_HHHj_glcma_Correlation | 1.747207143 |
| wavelet_HHLk_firstorder_RobustMeanAbsoluteDeviation | 0.000837188 |
| wavelet_HHLk_glcma_JointEntropy | 0.09227813 |
| wavelet_HHLk_glcma_ClusterShade | 0.006841175 |
| wavelet_HHLk_glcma_Imc2b | 4.886852754 |
| wavelet_LLLl_firstorder_InterquartileRange | 0.000397764 |
| wavelet_LLLl_glcma_Imc2b
| -1.992616499 |
a: gray-level co-occurrence matrix; b: InformationMeasureCorr2; e: gray level run length matrix; c, d, f, g, h, i, j, k and l represent high-pass filter and lowpass filter on the X, Y, Z three dimensions. The H represents high-pass filter and the L represents low-pass filter. X, Y, Z directions are relative to the standard DICOM LPS (left-posterior-superior) coordinate system.
Figure 3Boxplots of the Radiomics score (Rad-score) for the training and validation cohort.
Analysis of the potential clinical factors of LN metastasis.
| Potential factors | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | P | HR (95%CI) | P | |
|
| 1.015 (0.971-1.060) | 0.513 | ||
|
| 1.056 (0.402-2.769) | 0.912 | ||
|
| 1.233 (0.482-3.154) | 0.662 | ||
|
| ||||
| Pyriform sinus | 1.370 (0.586-3.200) | 0.467 | ||
| Posterior pharyngeal wall | 0.823 (0.342-1.984) | 0.665 | ||
| Post cricoid | 0.465 (0.063-3.445) | 0.453 | ||
|
| 16.283 (6.033-43.946) |
| 13.275 (4.180-42.161) |
|
|
| 13.137 (4.286-40.266) |
| 10.945 (3.120-38.399) |
|
HR, hazard ratio. CI, confidence interval. MRI LN status, Magnetic resonance imaging- reported lymph node status.
Bold values are factors with P<0.05 that are significant related with lymph node metastasis in HPSCC, it could be replaced with non-bold font.
Figure 4Radiomics nomogram developed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. (A) The radiomics nomogram was developed in the training cohort, with the rad-score and MRI-reported lymph node status incorporated. ROC curves of the combined model (blue lines), radiomics model (green lines) and reported status model (red lines) in the training cohort (B) and validation cohort (C).
Figure 5Calibration curves of the combined model, radiomics model and reported status model in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. (A) Calibration curve of the radiomics model in the training cohort. (B) Calibration curve of the MRI-reported status model in the training cohort. (C) Calibration curve of the combined model in the training cohort. (D) Calibration curve of the radiomics model in the validation cohort. (E) Calibration curve of the MRI-reported status model in the validation cohort. (F) Calibration curve of the combined model in the validation cohort. The black dotted line and the black line closer to the blue dotted line indicates a better calibration.
Figure 6Decision curve analysis for the combined model compared with the radiomics model and reported status alone. The x-axis represented the threshold probability and the y-axis measured the net benefit. The blue line represented the combined model. The green line represented the radiomics model. The red line represented the MRI-reported status model. The grey line represented the assumption that all patients had lymph node (LN) metastasis. The black line represented the hypothesis that no patients had LN metastasis.