| Literature DB >> 36238647 |
Yongfei He1, Tianyi Liang1, Zijun Chen1,2, Shutian Mo1,2, Yuan Liao1,2, Qiang Gao1,2, Ketuan Huang1,2, Tao Peng1,2, Weijie Zhou3, Chuangye Han1,2.
Abstract
Background: Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a high recurrence rate after surgery and lacks reliable predictive tools. We explored the potential of combining enhanced CT with gut microbiome to develop a predictive model for recurrence after early HCC surgery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36238647 PMCID: PMC9553367 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7261786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 7.310
Figure 1Flow chart of analysis.
Baseline characteristics.
| Train ( | Test ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender: | 0.482 | ||
| Female | 7 (9.86%) | 2 (4.88%) | |
| Male | 64 (90.1%) | 39 (95.1%) | |
| Age | 50.3 (9.65) | 52.5 (10.3) | 0.260 |
| BMI | 23.7 (3.88) | 23.0 (2.71) | 0.290 |
| Child pugh: | 1.000 | ||
| A | 70 (98.6%) | 41 (100%) | |
| B | 1 (1.41%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Hepatitis_B: | 0.036 | ||
| Others | 3 (4.23%) | 7 (17.1%) | |
| Yes | 68 (95.8%) | 34 (82.9%) | |
| AFP | 4.81 (2.64) | 3.97 (2.56) | 0.101 |
| DCP | 5.32 (2.47) | 4.81 (2.78) | 0.336 |
| BCLC: | 0.470 | ||
| 0 | 6 (8.45%) | 1 (2.44%) | |
| A | 60 (84.5%) | 38 (92.7%) | |
| B | 5 (7.04%) | 2 (4.88%) | |
| CNLC: | 0.751 | ||
| Ia | 38 (53.5%) | 24 (58.5%) | |
| Ib | 33 (46.5%) | 17 (41.5%) | |
| Tumor_number: | 0.264 | ||
| Multiple | 14 (19.7%) | 4 (9.76%) | |
| Single | 57 (80.3%) | 37 (90.2%) | |
| Maximum_diameter | 3.70 [2.50; 5.65] | 3.50 [2.50; 6.00] | 0.849 |
| Tumor_location: | 0.539 | ||
| Left | 16 (22.5%) | 6 (14.6%) | |
| Middle | 6 (8.45%) | 5 (12.2%) | |
| Right | 49 (69.0%) | 30 (73.2%) | |
| Hilar_occlusion_time | 37.5 [34.5; 55.5] | 31.0 [22.0; 42.0] | 0.005 |
| Time_of_operation | 245 [207; 308] | 245 [215; 299] | 0.878 |
| Bleeding | 200 [100; 375] | 200 [100; 300] | 0.831 |
| Operation_method: | 0.539 | ||
| Laparoscopic | 28 (39.4%) | 13 (31.7%) | |
| Open | 43 (60.6%) | 28 (68.3%) | |
| Pathology_classification: | 0.410 | ||
| 1&2_grade | 31 (43.7%) | 22 (53.7%) | |
| 3&4_grade | 40 (56.3%) | 19 (46.3%) | |
| MVI: | 0.437 | ||
| No | 53 (74.6%) | 34 (82.9%) | |
| Yes | 18 (25.4%) | 7 (17.1%) | |
| Cirrhosis: | 0.541 | ||
| No | 52 (73.2%) | 27 (65.9%) | |
| Yes | 19 (26.8%) | 14 (34.1%) | |
| RFS | 2.13 (0.91) | 2.02 (0.86) | 0.535 |
| Recrudescence | 0.21 (0.41) | 0.24 (0.43) | 0.697 |
| Otu_score | -0.17 [-0.48; 0.32] | -0.36 [-0.48; 0.16] | 0.393 |
| Ra_score | -0.04 [-0.56; 0.48] | 0.01 [-1.20; 0.52] | 0.548 |
Figure 2RFS-related risk factor analysis.
Evaluation relationship between radiomic-score and OTU-score and HCC recurrence in the Cox proportional hazards models.
| Model 1 ( | Model 2 ( | Model 3 ( | Model 4 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiomic-score | <0.001, 5.994[3.290-10.920] | <0.001, 5.856[3.159-10.858] | <0.001, 5.284[2.776-10.059] | <0.001, 5.868[2.874-11.982] |
| Radiomic-score∗ | <0.001, 5.416[3.021-9.710] | <0.001, 5.343[2.955-9.659] | <0.001, 4.360[2.455-7.744] | <0.001, 6.413[3.644-11.287] |
| OTU-score | <0.001, 1.540[1.327-1.786] | <0.001, 1.533[1.321-1.780] | <0.001, 2.881[2.357-3.521] | <0.001, 2.950[2.411-3.609] |
| OTU-score∗ | <0.001, 1.348[1.140-1.593] | <0.001, 1.357[1.146-1.607] | <0.001, 2.163[1.763-2.655] | <0.001, 2.715[2.206-3.342] |
Note: Model 1: we did not adjust any other parameter; Model 2: we constructed a minor adjusted model, which is adjusted for gender and age; Model 3: we adjusted the model for clinical important parameters, adjusting for gender, age, Child-pugh grade, AFP, DCP, tumor number, tumor maximum diameter, blood loss, pathology classification, MVI, and liver cirrhosis; Model 4: in this model, we adjusted for all parameters except for parameters that have existing collinearity, adjusting for gender, age, BMI, Child-pugh grade, hepatitis, AFP, DCP, tumor number, tumor maximum diameter, tumor location, hilar occlusion time, blood loss, pathology classification, MVI, and cirrhosis; ∗: we added radiomic-score and OTU-score as an adjusting factor into each of these models and further explore the relationship between radiomic-score and HCC recurrence; HCC, hepatocellular carcinomar.
Prognostic performance of radiomics combined with the gut microbiome models compared with staging systems.
| Train | Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models |
| Time-dependent AUC | IBS |
|
| Time-dependent AUC | IBS |
|
| OTU | 0.824 (0.729-0.919) | 0.848 | 0.077 | 0.032 | 0.751 (0.557-0.945) | 0.753 | 0.092 | 0.268 |
| Ra | 0.847 (0.726-0.968) | 0.895 | 0.059 | 0.033 | 0.791 (0.619-0.962) | 0.840 | 0.097 | 0.111 |
| OR | 0.900 (0.792-1.000) | 0.929 | 0.042 | Ref | 0.811 (0.650-0.972) | 0.859 | 0.094 | Ref |
| BCLC | 0.612 (0.379-0.845) | 0.500 | 0.114 | 0.013 | 0.615 (0.097-1.000) | 0.500 | 0.138 | 0.233 |
| CNLC | 0.598 (0.339-0.858) | 0.569 | 0.114 | 0.013 | 0.769 (0.481-1.000) | 0.652 | 0.132 | 0.373 |
Otu, operational taxonomic unit. Ra, radiomics. OR, operational taxonomic unit combines radiomics. BCLC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer. CNLC, Chinese liver cancer staging.
Figure 3Discriminatory performance and prediction error for all models and systems in the training and testing cohorts. (a) Shows the time-related regions under the receiver operating curve (ROC) at different time points, and (b) shows the prediction error estimates for the established models and staging. Otu, operational taxonomic unit; Ra, radiomics; OR, operational taxonomic unit combines radiomics; BCLC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer; CNLC, Chinese liver cancer staging.
Figure 4Decision curves for obtaining RFS using the established model and staging system in the training and testing cohorts. The y-axis measures the net benefit, which is calculated by adding together the benefit (true positive results) and subtracting the harm (false positive results), weighting the latter by a factor that compares the relative harm of undetected tumors to the harm of unnecessary treatment. The imaging combined with the gut microbiome model provided the best net benefit compared to the separate models and staging systems. Otu, operational taxonomic unit; Ra, radiomics; OR, operational taxonomic unit combines radiomics; BCLC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer; CNLC, Chinese liver cancer staging.
Figure 5Cumulative rate of tumor recurrence for the three risk strata defined by the model.
Figure 6Operational taxonomic unit combines radiomics predicted recurrence column line graph.
Figure 7Differentially enriched bacterial taxa. (a) PCA showed the beta diversity evaluated by the Bray-Curtis distance between the recurrent and nonrecurrent HCC. (b) Taxonomic cladogram LEfSe showed different taxa enriched in relapsed and nonrelapsed HCC (LDA > 3, P < 0.05).0, non-recurrent HCC; 1, recurrent HCC.