Automated CT biomarkers for opportunistic prediction of future cardiovascular events and mortality in an asymptomatic screening population: a retrospective cohort study.
Journal
The Lancet. Digital health
ISSN: 2589-7500
Titre abrégé: Lancet Digit Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101751302
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
entrez:
1
9
2020
pubmed:
31
8
2020
medline:
31
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Body CT scans are frequently performed for a wide variety of clinical indications, but potentially valuable biometric information typically goes unused. We investigated the prognostic ability of automated CT-based body composition biomarkers derived from previously-developed deep-learning and feature-based algorithms for predicting major cardiovascular events and overall survival in an adult screening cohort, compared with clinical parameters. Mature and fully-automated CT-based algorithms with pre-defined metrics for quantifying aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat, liver fat, and bone mineral density (BMD) were applied to a generally-healthy asymptomatic outpatient cohort of 9223 adults (mean age, 57.1 years; 5152 women) undergoing abdominal CT for routine colorectal cancer screening. Longitudinal clinical follow-up (median, 8.8 years; IQR, 5.1-11.6 years) documented subsequent major cardiovascular events or death in 19.7% (n=1831). Predictive ability of CT-based biomarkers was compared against the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and body mass index (BMI). Significant differences were observed for all five automated CT-based body composition measures according to adverse events (p<0.001). Univariate 5-year AUROC (with 95% CI) for automated CT-based aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat ratio, liver density, and vertebral density for predicting death were 0.743(0.705-0.780)/0.721(0.683-0.759)/0.661(0.625-0.697)/0.619 (0.582-0.656)/0.646(0.603-0.688), respectively, compared with 0.499(0.454-0.544) for BMI and 0.688(0.650-0.727) for FRS (p<0.05 for aortic calcification vs. FRS and BMI); all trends were similar for 2-year and 10-year ROC analyses. Univariate hazard ratios (with 95% CIs) for highest-risk quartile versus others for these same CT measures were 4.53(3.82-5.37) /3.58(3.02-4.23)/2.28(1.92-2.71)/1.82(1.52-2.17)/2.73(2.31-3.23), compared with 1.36(1.13-1.64) and 2.82(2.36-3.37) for BMI and FRS, respectively. Similar significant trends were observed for cardiovascular events. Multivariate combinations of CT biomarkers further improved prediction over clinical parameters (p<0.05 for AUROCs). For example, by combining aortic calcification, muscle density, and liver density, the 2-year AUROC for predicting overall survival was 0.811 (0.761-0.860). Fully-automated quantitative tissue biomarkers derived from CT scans can outperform established clinical parameters for pre-symptomatic risk stratification for future serious adverse events, and add opportunistic value to CT scans performed for other indications.
Sections du résumé
Background
Body CT scans are frequently performed for a wide variety of clinical indications, but potentially valuable biometric information typically goes unused. We investigated the prognostic ability of automated CT-based body composition biomarkers derived from previously-developed deep-learning and feature-based algorithms for predicting major cardiovascular events and overall survival in an adult screening cohort, compared with clinical parameters.
Methods
Mature and fully-automated CT-based algorithms with pre-defined metrics for quantifying aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat, liver fat, and bone mineral density (BMD) were applied to a generally-healthy asymptomatic outpatient cohort of 9223 adults (mean age, 57.1 years; 5152 women) undergoing abdominal CT for routine colorectal cancer screening. Longitudinal clinical follow-up (median, 8.8 years; IQR, 5.1-11.6 years) documented subsequent major cardiovascular events or death in 19.7% (n=1831). Predictive ability of CT-based biomarkers was compared against the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and body mass index (BMI).
Findings
Significant differences were observed for all five automated CT-based body composition measures according to adverse events (p<0.001). Univariate 5-year AUROC (with 95% CI) for automated CT-based aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat ratio, liver density, and vertebral density for predicting death were 0.743(0.705-0.780)/0.721(0.683-0.759)/0.661(0.625-0.697)/0.619 (0.582-0.656)/0.646(0.603-0.688), respectively, compared with 0.499(0.454-0.544) for BMI and 0.688(0.650-0.727) for FRS (p<0.05 for aortic calcification vs. FRS and BMI); all trends were similar for 2-year and 10-year ROC analyses. Univariate hazard ratios (with 95% CIs) for highest-risk quartile versus others for these same CT measures were 4.53(3.82-5.37) /3.58(3.02-4.23)/2.28(1.92-2.71)/1.82(1.52-2.17)/2.73(2.31-3.23), compared with 1.36(1.13-1.64) and 2.82(2.36-3.37) for BMI and FRS, respectively. Similar significant trends were observed for cardiovascular events. Multivariate combinations of CT biomarkers further improved prediction over clinical parameters (p<0.05 for AUROCs). For example, by combining aortic calcification, muscle density, and liver density, the 2-year AUROC for predicting overall survival was 0.811 (0.761-0.860).
Interpretation
Fully-automated quantitative tissue biomarkers derived from CT scans can outperform established clinical parameters for pre-symptomatic risk stratification for future serious adverse events, and add opportunistic value to CT scans performed for other indications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32864598
doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30025-X
pmc: PMC7454161
mid: NIHMS1574244
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Langues
eng
Pagination
e192-e200Subventions
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z01 CL040004
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Circulation. 2008 Feb 12;117(6):743-53
pubmed: 18212285
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Aug;44(8):2921-2928
pubmed: 30976827
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):318-328
pubmed: 29944078
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Nov 1;2(11):e1914718
pubmed: 31702797
Br J Radiol. 2018 Sep;91(1089):20170968
pubmed: 29557216
Radiology. 2019 Jun;291(3):781-791
pubmed: 30990384
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 1;2(11):1236-1246
pubmed: 28975197
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;5(7):967-972
pubmed: 31095251
N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 4;349(23):2191-200
pubmed: 14657426
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):588-95
pubmed: 23588747
Circulation. 2015 Oct 27;132(17):1639-47
pubmed: 26294660
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1347-1358
pubmed: 30943338
Gastroenterology. 2005 Dec;129(6):1832-44
pubmed: 16344052
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Oct;7(10):754-73
pubmed: 20889105
Radiology. 2019 Nov;293(2):334-342
pubmed: 31526254
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 4;357(14):1403-12
pubmed: 17914041
Br J Radiol. 2019 Aug;92(1100):20190327
pubmed: 31199670
Radiology. 2017 Dec;285(3):713-718
pubmed: 29155639
Acad Radiol. 2020 Mar;27(3):311-320
pubmed: 31126808
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1216-9
pubmed: 27682033
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Apr;208(4):754-760
pubmed: 28125274
J Bone Miner Res. 2018 May;33(5):860-867
pubmed: 29314261
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 16;18(12):e323
pubmed: 27986644
N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 24;364(8):719-29
pubmed: 21345101
Med Image Anal. 2012 Jul;16(5):933-51
pubmed: 22465077
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011 Mar-Apr;35(2):212-6
pubmed: 21412092
Radiology. 2019 Jan;290(1):108-115
pubmed: 30277443
Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 27;8(1):11369
pubmed: 30054580
Radiology. 2019 May;291(2):360-367
pubmed: 30912719
Br J Radiol. 2019 Feb;92(1094):20180726
pubmed: 30433815
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 15;9(1):16884
pubmed: 31729403
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 10;74(10):e177-e232
pubmed: 30894318
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2631-9
pubmed: 17182988
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Sep;211(3):W151-W157
pubmed: 30016142